PDA

View Full Version : Is there any consensus on how Celtic DNA made its way to Western Norway yet?



PaleBlueDot
29-04-15, 19:55
Ages ago I remember there was a debate about the surprisingly high amount of Y R1b-L21 present in Norway, especially on the west coast in regions where many viking raiders originated. The big question was whether this was due to some strange ancient anomaly, male slaves returned to Norway and allowed to procreate (perhaps freed thralls?) or maybe some much later Scottish immigrants (in huge numbers).
My understanding was there was no consensus, and perhaps some future (mtDNA?) tests would help clear up this issue.

Since then I have read that an even higher portion of male icelanders and over half of female icelanders carry celtic markers, which clearly came from vikings bringing celts along. I also read about some viking buried in Greenland that was more Celtic than Nordic, and that Orkney islanders have similar amounts of viking and celtic origins.
Is the issue of West coast Norway closer to being resolved yet? Has perhaps Norwegian mtDNA been mapped? If so, is celtic mtDNA in Norway more or less common than celtic Y-DNA? Was the contact prehistoric, viking era or much more recent?

Also, since we now know that there are so many people with both Celtic and Nordic blood in Iceland, Greenland, Ireland, Orkney etc - is it likely that the celtic DNA found in West Coast Norwegians came from protracted contact with these colonies, and was more "peaceful" than originally assumed?

bicicleur
29-04-15, 22:20
who says R1b-L21 is exclusively Celtic ?

PaleBlueDot
29-04-15, 23:22
who says R1b-L21 is exclusively Celtic ?

I read it on NorwayDNA, but lots of sources use this term. (I am not allowed to post links yet due to just joining.)

A quick search on Eupedia showing the distribution of R2b L21 shows a pretty convincing picture. You don't often see as concentrated and exclusive haplogroups as this one in Europe. Wherever it came from, it is huge in the "Celtic fringe", that is the non anglo-saxon parts of the UK as well as Brittany. I can call it something else than "celtic" if this offends you.

So, anything new in this area? I am particularly interested in knowing what the general consensus is (if there is any), not your personal theory, although you are of course free to suggest anything.

Expredel
30-04-15, 01:33
Ages ago I remember there was a debate about the surprisingly high amount of Y R1b-L21 present in Norway, especially on the west coast in regions where many viking raiders originated. The big question was whether this was due to some strange ancient anomaly, male slaves returned to Norway and allowed to procreate (perhaps freed thralls?) or maybe some much later Scottish immigrants (in huge numbers).
My understanding was there was no consensus, and perhaps some future (mtDNA?) tests would help clear up this issue.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TO6rNK6dJVk/U2XvzNCYGZI/AAAAAAAADUA/D7s4LdLnG1Q/s1600/BellBeaker.gif

The data I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africa around 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara dried up they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as Bell Beaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1. Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2. Arrow head similarity maps
3. Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4. Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5. Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6. Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7. Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronze technology
8. No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (why would they having a navy?)
9. Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10. Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11. Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12. Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, and the presence of R1b.

Not surprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as is R1b.

The theory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600 BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture and language. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.

Aaron1981
30-04-15, 03:46
Ages ago I remember there was a debate about the surprisingly high amount of Y R1b-L21 present in Norway, especially on the west coast in regions where many viking raiders originated. The big question was whether this was due to some strange ancient anomaly, male slaves returned to Norway and allowed to procreate (perhaps freed thralls?) or maybe some much later Scottish immigrants (in huge numbers).
My understanding was there was no consensus, and perhaps some future (mtDNA?) tests would help clear up this issue.

Since then I have read that an even higher portion of male icelanders and over half of female icelanders carry celtic markers, which clearly came from vikings bringing celts along. I also read about some viking buried in Greenland that was more Celtic than Nordic, and that Orkney islanders have similar amounts of viking and celtic origins.
Is the issue of West coast Norway closer to being resolved yet? Has perhaps Norwegian mtDNA been mapped? If so, is celtic mtDNA in Norway more or less common than celtic Y-DNA? Was the contact prehistoric, viking era or much more recent?

Also, since we now know that there are so many people with both Celtic and Nordic blood in Iceland, Greenland, Ireland, Orkney etc - is it likely that the celtic DNA found in West Coast Norwegians came from protracted contact with these colonies, and was more "peaceful" than originally assumed?

Maybe they're all Nordic. Yes, the recent study had the bulk of the R1b in Iceland belonging to R1b-L21 and R1b-U106.

Why would you assume only R1b are slaves?

PaleBlueDot
30-04-15, 08:47
Maybe they're all Nordic. Yes, the recent study had the bulk of the R1b in Iceland belonging to R1b-L21 and R1b-U106.
Why would you assume only R1b are slaves?
I'm assuming that lots of haplogroups including various branches of R1b as well as L1 are were common among slaves in Norway.


I wish I could link the image of distribution of haplogroup R1b-L21 (S145) from Eupedia.
On this map you can very clearly see that this is a branch only common in the celtic fringe, most strongly in Ireland and Scotland. It is also common in Iceland, where no one lived until the Vikings arrived.

It is not common at all in Sweden, which otherwise has very strong genetic ties with Norway. There is even a small hotspot in Northern Sicily.
This all makes sense, as Sweden got their trade contact/slaves from eastern countries rather than Britain, and tons of Normans settled in Northern Sicily (where L1 is unexpectedly common).

I thought this was the close to the prevailing view. I wanted to know if there is new evidence in this area, or if someone can confirm that viking slavery (or intermarriage) is the reason for this.

bicicleur
30-04-15, 09:00
the Goidels, ancestral to the the British Celts would have entered England +/- 1000 BC, they have identified by their broader skulls.
http://www.huntingdonshire.info/history/1_3_bronze_age.asp
The unbroken typological sequence of weapon and tool forms which developed during the Early Bronze Age (characteristic forms, dagger and flat axe) c. 1700-1400 B.C. and the Middle Bronze Age (rapier and palstave), 1400-1000 B.C. suggest that during the second millennium the conditions in Eastern Britain were fairly stable and peaceful. The Late Bronze Age (c. 1000-500B.C.) is marked by the appearance of the leaf-shaped sword, replacing the rapier, and the socketed axe, replacing the palstave; and there are grounds for believing that the change is due to an invasion, the brunt of which fell on Eastern Britain.5 (http://www.huntingdonshire.info/history/1_3_bronze_age.asp#Footnotes) Some think that the new-comers were Goidels, the first Celtic-speaking peoples to reach these shores; the present writer accepts this view is probable.

but prior to that, 1300 BC there was the Atlantic Bronze Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Bronze_Age

maybe that was the time R1b-L21 spread al along the Atlantic coast (prior to arrival on the British Isles)

Taranis
30-04-15, 10:51
In my opinion, the most likely explanation for R1b-L21 in Norway and Iceland stem from Gaelic and Pictish slaves during the Viking period. Until ancient DNA shows up from Norway that proves that the presence is older, I hold this for the most likely explanation.




The data I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africa around 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara dried up they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as Bell Beaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1. Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2. Arrow head similarity maps
3. Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4. Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5. Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6. Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7. Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronze technology
8. No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (why would they having a navy?)
9. Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10. Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11. Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12. Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, and the presence of R1b.

Not surprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as is R1b.

No offense to you, but what you're doing there on the genetic side is take the modern distribution for granted and correlate it to a single historic event that lies in the far past (the Beaker-Bell culture). If you take a look at the subclades of R1b, the distribution pattern of R1b in Western Europe correlates very poorly overall with the Beaker-Bell culture.

From a linguistic perspective, your claim is untenable. The Celtic languages are demonstrably Indo-European languages, not Afroasiatic languages. They're related with the Indo-Iranic languages of the Indian subcontinent and the extinct Tocharian languages of the Tarim basin, not with the Berber languages, Ancient Egyptian, Chadic (e.g. Hausa), Kushitic (e.g. Somali) or Semitic (e.g. Arabic and Hebrew). The supposed similarities between Celtic and Afroasiatic are only with the modern (Insular) Celtic languages, there is no such similarity between the ancient Celtic languages (like Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more similar to Ancient Greek and Sanskrit.

There's also, I might add, zero evidence for linguistic presence of the Celts in Morocco. Not from place names, not from loanwords in the Berber languages.

By saying R1b-L21 is "exclusively" Celtic, you're also ignore the distribution patterns of two other major western European subclades, R1b-U152 and R1b-U106, which both point much more to a Central European origin.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S21.gif

Furthermore, I'll pinpoint you to this very well-written discussion by Maciamo on the Beaker-Bell culture... (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)


The theory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600 BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture and language. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.

The Hallstatt theory is, in my opinion, the least bad theory that we currently have on the origin of the Celtic languages.

Greying Wanderer
30-04-15, 15:58
My view is the dramatic spread of certain R1b clades is connected to Bell Beaker (not necessarily all of R1b but the lucky clades were) and I think the ydna expansions connected to it may have followed a sequence starting in Cantabria, going north to Ireland/Britain/Breton and then the "Irish/British/Breton" clade expanding west to east e.g. to the west coast of Norway, later pushed back east to west again by later Nordic and Central European expansions.

Alternatively it's viking allies / captives.

#

so stage 1

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.gif

stage 2

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L21.gif

stage 3+

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

https://thecampblogbymike.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/haplogroup-r1b-s21.gif

something like that anyway

Aaron1981
30-04-15, 17:26
I'm assuming that lots of haplogroups including various branches of R1b as well as L1 are were common among slaves in Norway.


I wish I could link the image of distribution of haplogroup R1b-L21 (S145) from Eupedia.
On this map you can very clearly see that this is a branch only common in the celtic fringe, most strongly in Ireland and Scotland. It is also common in Iceland, where no one lived until the Vikings arrived.

It is not common at all in Sweden, which otherwise has very strong genetic ties with Norway. There is even a small hotspot in Northern Sicily.
This all makes sense, as Sweden got their trade contact/slaves from eastern countries rather than Britain, and tons of Normans settled in Northern Sicily (where L1 is unexpectedly common).

I thought this was the close to the prevailing view. I wanted to know if there is new evidence in this area, or if someone can confirm that viking slavery (or intermarriage) is the reason for this.

There is no evidence slaves have ever made up such a large portion of a gene pool. In fact the statement is ridiculous.
If we must consider a non-Germanic origin, it's far more likely the Norwegian coasts were settled with L21 before the Germanic migration period.

EDIT: Other more complicated scenarios include some L21+ arriving from Sweden during the Migration period - it's far from "non-existant", just check the Swedish FTDNA project. Some could have arrived in Norway with skilled labour immigrants within the last 300 years from L21+ rich countries like Britain, France, Belgium. Religious persecution from the Catholic Church was very severe at this time, and the Nordic countries very accommodating.

MOESAN
30-04-15, 17:43
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TO6rNK6dJVk/U2XvzNCYGZI/AAAAAAAADUA/D7s4LdLnG1Q/s1600/BellBeaker.gif

The data I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africa around 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara dried up they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as Bell Beaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1. Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2. Arrow head similarity maps
3. Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4. Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5. Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6. Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7. Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronze technology
8. No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (why would they having a navy?)
9. Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10. Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11. Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12. Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, and the presence of R1b.

Not surprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as is R1b.

The theory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600 BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture and language. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.


ANSWER
some good points but we cananalyse some of them from an other perspective1. Bell Beakers in NorthAfrica can as well be an importation2. Same remark : theywere part of the same « kit ».3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is notdense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can belinked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Eancultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).5. Celtic languages since 3000BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuineproto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does itprove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?6. Celtic and Afro-Asiaticlanguages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celticlanguages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was soclose to the A-A ones...7. OK no remark, but ?8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chancesto be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritimeorigin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people thanmaritime people at first, but they learned quick and well accordingto the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal withprevious shores people.9. the Horse in the Islesabout 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen andbowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?10. African cattle in Iberiabefore the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithiccolonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that :north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.11. Connexion betweenberberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberianhorses in the Isles ?12. Strong connexion forterritories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories,spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. Theheavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in SouthernPortugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What wecould imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) andits subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on theCelts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation ofthe celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping analready existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most importantimput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine riverabout the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on differentdirections. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin anda way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reachingIberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false orLegends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths ofthe diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, whatdoesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ?Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BBpromotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Eanspeaking !I'm not trying to destroy yourthoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.Wait and see more clues...
for R1b L21 in Norway and BBs possible but not sure - but what kind of BBs??? L21 = Celt? very possible I agree! -
the presence there as a slaves imput seems a bit surprising - maybe too some alliances with irishmen? (the famous Gaels-Vikings and Vikings-Gaels) - if I recall well, some supposed 'viking' ligneages of the Hebrides islands in Scotland were of Y-R1b ligneages -

concerning the map, I saw a lot of diverging maps, all spotty !!! here it lacks the Southern Meseta BBs "lands" (an accultured one more than a cradle one)

MOESAN
30-04-15, 17:44
ANSWER
some good points but we cananalyse some of them from an other perspective1. Bell Beakers in NorthAfrica can as well be an importation2. Same remark : theywere part of the same « kit ».3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is notdense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can belinked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Eancultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).5. Celtic languages since 3000BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuineproto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does itprove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?6. Celtic and Afro-Asiaticlanguages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celticlanguages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was soclose to the A-A ones...7. OK no remark, but ?8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chancesto be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritimeorigin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people thanmaritime people at first, but they learned quick and well accordingto the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal withprevious shores people.9. the Horse in the Islesabout 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen andbowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?10. African cattle in Iberiabefore the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithiccolonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that :north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.11. Connexion betweenberberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberianhorses in the Isles ?12. Strong connexion forterritories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories,spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. Theheavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in SouthernPortugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What wecould imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) andits subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on theCelts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation ofthe celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping analready existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most importantimput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine riverabout the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on differentdirections. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin anda way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reachingIberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false orLegends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths ofthe diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, whatdoesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ?Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BBpromotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Eanspeaking !I'm not trying to destroy yourthoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.Wait and see more clues...

MOESAN
30-04-15, 17:47
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TO6rNK6dJVk/U2XvzNCYGZI/AAAAAAAADUA/D7s4LdLnG1Q/s1600/BellBeaker.gif

The data I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africa around 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara dried up they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as Bell Beaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1. Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2. Arrow head similarity maps
3. Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4. Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5. Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6. Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7. Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronze technology
8. No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (why would they having a navy?)
9. Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10. Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11. Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12. Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, and the presence of R1b.

Not surprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as is R1b.

The theory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600 BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture and language. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.


ANSWER
some good points but we cananalyse some of them from an other perspective1. Bell Beakers in NorthAfrica can as well be an importation2. Same remark : theywere part of the same « kit ».3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is notdense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can belinked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Eancultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).5. Celtic languages since 3000BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuineproto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does itprove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?6. Celtic and Afro-Asiaticlanguages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celticlanguages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was soclose to the A-A ones...7. OK no remark, but ?8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chancesto be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritimeorigin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people thanmaritime people at first, but they learned quick and well accordingto the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal withprevious shores people.9. the Horse in the Islesabout 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen andbowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?10. African cattle in Iberiabefore the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithiccolonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that :north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.11. Connexion betweenberberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberianhorses in the Isles ?12. Strong connexion forterritories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories,spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. Theheavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in SouthernPortugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What wecould imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) andits subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on theCelts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation ofthe celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping analready existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most importantimput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine riverabout the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on differentdirections. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin anda way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reachingIberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false orLegends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths ofthe diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, whatdoesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ?Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BBpromotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Eanspeaking !I'm not trying to destroy yourthoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.Wait and see more clues...
for R1b L21 in Norway and BBs possible but not sure - but what kind of BBs??? L21 = Celt? very possible I agree! -
the presence there as a slaves imput seems a bit surprising - maybe too some alliances with irishmen? (the famous Gaels-Vikings and Vikings-Gaels) - if I recall well, some supposed 'viking' ligneages of the Hebrides islands in Scotland were of Y-R1b ligneages -

Aaron1981
30-04-15, 17:51
No offense to you, but what you're doing there on the genetic side is take the modern distribution for granted and correlate it to a single historic event that lies in the far past (the Beaker-Bell culture). If you take a look at the subclades of R1b, the distribution pattern of R1b in Western Europe correlates very poorly overall with the Beaker-Bell culture.

You're very incorrect here - in fact it correlates very well with Bell Beaker. Quite possibly all the major subclades of R1b below L11+ and their successes (in Western Europe) are through the distribution of this new culture. Most Bell Beaker men to date have been found P312+, and others highly likely to be. Surely this counts for something.



The Hallstatt theory is, in my opinion, the least bad theory that we currently have on the origin of the Celtic languages.

We have La Tene remains, and ironically 2 of the 3 remains belonged to your branch of R1b. The other was the common European/Western Caucasus G variety.

MOESAN
30-04-15, 17:55
Thedata I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africaaround 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara driedup they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as BellBeaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1.Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2.Arrow head similarity maps
3.Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4.Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5.Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6.Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7.Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronzetechnology
8.No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (whywould they having a navy?)
9.Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10.Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11.Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12.Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, andthe presence of R1b.

Notsurprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as isR1b.

Thetheory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture andlanguage. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.
ANSWER
some good points but we cananalyse some of them from an other perspective1. Bell Beakers in NorthAfrica can as well be an importation2. Same remark : theywere part of the same « kit ».3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is notdense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can belinked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Eancultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).5. Celtic languages since 3000BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuineproto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does itprove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?6. Celtic and Afro-Asiaticlanguages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celticlanguages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was soclose to the A-A ones...7. OK no remark, but ?8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chancesto be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritimeorigin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people thanmaritime people at first, but they learned quick and well accordingto the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal withprevious shores people.9. the Horse in the Islesabout 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen andbowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?10. African cattle in Iberiabefore the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithiccolonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that :north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.11. Connexion betweenberberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberianhorses in the Isles ?12. Strong connexion forterritories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories,spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. Theheavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in SouthernPortugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What wecould imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) andits subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on theCelts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation ofthe celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping analready existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most importantimput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine riverabout the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on differentdirections. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin anda way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reachingIberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false orLegends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths ofthe diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, whatdoesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ?Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BBpromotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Eanspeaking !I'm not trying to destroy yourthoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.Wait and see more clues...

MOESAN
30-04-15, 17:57
I've some problems with a post I tried to copy-stick and it is still running away without any chance to erase it or write it correctly - by the Hell, wht is that ??? MY god!
I hope we 'll find a solution

MOESAN
30-04-15, 18:01
ANSWER
some good points but we cananalyse some of them from an other perspective1. Bell Beakers in NorthAfrica can as well be an importation2. Same remark : theywere part of the same « kit ».3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is notdense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can belinked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Eancultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).5. Celtic languages since 3000BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuineproto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does itprove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?6. Celtic and Afro-Asiaticlanguages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celticlanguages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was soclose to the A-A ones...7. OK no remark, but ?8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chancesto be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritimeorigin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people thanmaritime people at first, but they learned quick and well accordingto the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal withprevious shores people.9. the Horse in the Islesabout 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen andbowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?10. African cattle in Iberiabefore the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithiccolonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that :north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.11. Connexion betweenberberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberianhorses in the Isles ?12. Strong connexion forterritories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories,spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. Theheavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in SouthernPortugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What wecould imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) andits subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on theCelts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation ofthe celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping analready existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most importantimput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine riverabout the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on differentdirections. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin anda way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reachingIberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false orLegends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths ofthe diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, whatdoesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ?Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BBpromotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Eanspeaking !I'm not trying to destroy yourthoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.Wait and see more clues...

it' s my first part of post - I hope it will work now! good luck!

PaleBlueDot
30-04-15, 18:08
There is no evidence slaves have ever made up such a large portion of a gene pool. In fact the statement is ridiculous.
It's far more likely the Norwegian coasts were settled with L21 before the migration period.

Obviously, there is no absolute proof either way. What we do know is:

- Over half of females in Iceland carry mtDNA from Celtic areas. Transporting lots of slaves/wifes was at the very least not impossible.
- 15-20% of males in Iceland carry L21. This is a lot more than west coast Norwegians. Quite a few celtic males (and/or their descendants) must have been transported to Iceland and been allowed to procreate, in addition to females.
- Vikings did bring at least some slaves back to Norway, and also freed some slaves. There even was a lot of ceremony around this act. Thralls could buy themselves free, or be freed by their master or a third person. Is it not possible that (over time) generation after generation of slaves were brought into Norway and freed? After all Norway had a very small population at the time.

Even if this was impossible, we know that intermarriage between Celts and Norwegians must have been common in many areas, such as the Orkney Islands where people today descent from as much nordic as celtic "blood". These areas - Iceland, Greenland, Orkney etc were either controlled by or in close contact with Norway over many centuries. Perhaps much L21 came from this protracted contact?

If L21 came long before the viking age, one would have expected it all over Scandinavia - or at least further inland, rather than being clustered around the coastal regions of the West were viking kingdoms just happen to emerge much later.
The fact that L21 is surprisingly common in the areas of Sicily where Normans ruled makes it seem unlikely that L21 came to Norway after the viking age.

bicicleur
30-04-15, 18:11
In my opinion, the most likely explanation for R1b-L21 in Norway and Iceland stem from Gaelic and Pictish slaves during the Viking period. Until ancient DNA shows up from Norway that proves that the presence is older, I hold this for the most likely explanation.

My opinion is that R1b-L21 does not stem from the British Celts, but R1b-L21 in SW Norway and the British Celts have the same ancestors.
It seems we're both just guessing.
Anciant DNA could prove who's right, but other info could help as well : which subclades of R1b-L21 are in the British Isles and which are in SW Norway? Are they the same or are there differences? And how old are these subclades? Is there any info about that?

MOESAN
30-04-15, 18:31
The data I've seen suggests the Celts were a horse tribe in North Africa around 3000 BC with access to the early galley. When the Sahara dried up they moved into Western Europe. The Culture is known as Bell Beaker, haplogroup is R1b L21, language was Celtic.

Evidence:

1. Similarities in pottery styles of Bell Beakers and North Africa
2. Arrow head similarity maps
3. Y haplogroup R1b L21 split up around 3000 BC
4. Maternal DNA (Plenty of H in North Africa)
5. Celtic languages likely split around 3000 BC
6. Celtic has similarities with Afro-Asiatic
7. Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia around 3000 BC with bronze technology
8. No evidence suggesting R1b L21 moved through Central Europe (why would they having a navy?)
9. Introduction of the horse in England between 2500 and 3000 BC
10. Introduction of African cattle in Iberia prior to 1500 BC
11. Strong connection between Iberian and Berber horses
12. Strong connection between Bell Beaker territory, Celtic language, and the presence of R1b.

Not surprisingly Bell Beaker artifacts were found in SW Norway as is R1b.

The theory that the Celtic language spread from the Hallstatt culture 600 BC is pretty much discredited, it was a much older culture and language. Seems correct to state that R1b-L21 is Celtic.

ANSWER

some good points but we can analyse some of them from an other perspective
1. Bell Beakers in North Africa can as well be an importation
2. Same remark : they were part of the same « kit ».
3. OK but Y-R1b-L21 is not dense in places where BBs are, for the most. If LATE BBs can be linked to Celts they can be linked too proto-stages of others I-Ean cultures (surely Italic, maybe Germanic).
5. Celtic languages since 3000 BC ? It is not sure but possible, even if I think the genuine proto-Celtic separated from proto-Italic begun only about the 2500 BC, without solid proof I acknowledge so : OK here, but does it prove a link with FIRST BBs and North Africa ?
6. Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages ? Neo-Celtic yes (maybe substrata), but old Celtic languages ? I 'm not sure the ancient celtic syntaxis was so close to the A-A ones...
7. OK no remark, but ?
8. Y-R1b-L21 had more chances to be born in Western Europe than in Alps, but it come from Y-R-P310 as U152 and others of West and West-Central Europe. Its maritime origin is to be proved : Celts were more continental people than maritime people at first, but they learned quick and well according to the Ancients, and can impose their rules upon, or deal with previous shores people.
9. the Horse in the Isles about 3000/2500 BC ? Seems coherent with BBs being horsemen and bowmen (rather the 2500 BC?) - What else can this prove ?
10. African cattle in Iberia before the 1500 BC... at what precise date ? And Neolithic colonization and/or subsequent trade can explain that : north-african cattle in the Isles would have been more probant.
11. Connexion between berberian and iberian horses : same answer : berberian horses in the Isles ?
12. Strong connexion for territories concerning BBs, Celts and R1b ? The BBs territories, spotty for the most, leaved huge territories without any BB. The heavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in Southern Portugal. It is truer concerning the Y-R1b-L21 distribution. What we could imagine is that the BB culture (an elite one, for I think) and its subsequent action of acculturation, had a heavy imput on the Celts culture developpment, leaving 2 hypothesis : creation of the celtic distinction upon a West-I-Ean communauty, or doping an already existing proto-celtic communauty. For me the most important imput of BBs upon Celts took place in Germany along the Rhine river about the 2500/2200 BC before provocating expansions on different directions. It 's true celtic myths speak of a far Scythic origin and a way across Mediterranea through southern shores before reaching Iberia ; what to think of that ? Legends are false or Legends contain a bit of truth but also can melt down the myths of the diverse previous components of a resulting mixed population, what doesn't exclude borrowings to more respected civilizations ? Uneasy to be sure of some things, I'm not even sure first genuine BB promotors (East Carpathians origin, then Croatian?) were I-Ean speaking !
I'm not trying to destroy your thoughts but I propose other interpretations of the facts.
Wait and see more clues...

MOESAN
30-04-15, 18:36
My opinion is that R1b-L21 does not stem from the British Celts, but R1b-L21 in SW Norway and the British Celts have the same ancestors.
It seems we're both just guessing.
Anciant DNA could prove who's right, but other info could help as well : which subclades of R1b-L21 are in the British Isles and which are in SW Norway? Are they the same or are there differences? And how old are these subclades? Is there any info about that?

I agree there is some possibility that Y-R-L21 was settled on the NW and NORTH shores of Europe at some stage before becoming so dense in Ireland and W-Britain -
subclades could help us if we have the chance to get them
I find otherwise a bit surprising that slave males would be allowed to reproduct themselves in a so huge quantity - but the hypothesis of Gaels incorporated in Viking adventures is not completely to be ruled out -

Taranis
30-04-15, 18:36
You're very incorrect here - in fact it correlates very well with Bell Beaker. Quite possibly all the major subclades of R1b below L11+ and their successes (in Western Europe) are through the distribution of this new culture. Most Bell Beaker men to date have been found P312+, and others highly likely to be. Surely this counts for something.

I'm precisely correct, and if you look into the distribution of the various R1b subclades, it correlates very poorly with the expansion pattern of the Bell Beaker culture (it correlates a whole lot better with its disappearance, ironically enough). The more archaic clades are generally found in the vicinity of central Europe, and the distribution of the major subclades would also suggest that the entry into Western Europe as a whole was from Central Europe, and not from Southwestern Iberia, where the oldest Bell-Beaker sites are to be find. If Southwestern Iberia was origin of Western European R1b, I'd expect the focus point of R1b diversity to be located there, not in Central Europe.

While I don't discount the association of R1b with the Indo-Europeans, I find the association of the Bell-Beaker culture with them on the grounds of prettymuch everything we do know about Indo-European languages pretty absurd. The general consensus is that the Indo-European languages originated somewhere in the east (east of Western Europe, anyways)*, most probably on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. If you disagree with that, you should tell us your arguments. It just strikes me as utterly absurd that a pastoralist culture that uses horses and wheeled vehicles would ditch their roots "over night", miraculously travel to southern Iberia (that was always one of the most dubious aspects of the whole idea) and kickstart a maritime Empire.

In my opinion, to summarize, the Bell-Beaker theory isn't compatible with the Pontic-Caspian steppe model.


We have La Tene remains, and ironically 2 of the 3 remains belonged to your branch of R1b. The other was the common European/Western Caucasus G variety.

I honestly don't see your point there. How does that disprove what I said?

bicicleur
30-04-15, 18:49
My opinion is that R1b-L21 does not stem from the British Celts, but R1b-L21 in SW Norway and the British Celts have the same ancestors.
It seems we're both just guessing.
Anciant DNA could prove who's right, but other info could help as well : which subclades of R1b-L21 are in the British Isles and which are in SW Norway? Are they the same or are there differences? And how old are these subclades? Is there any info about that?

check this : http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/
TMRCA 4700 years, while the Goidels (British Celts) would have arrived in England just 3000 years ago.
R-A50 (sublcade of DF21) seems to be Norvegian
R-Z2185 and R-Z2189 (both sublcades of R-Z253) seem to be Iberian
most other sublcades are British or Irish
British/Irish - Norvegian - Iberian seem to stem from different subclades of R-L21
of course the info on which this conclusion is based is very limited

Greying Wanderer
30-04-15, 22:02
@Moesan


The heavier regions for Y-R1b are in Northern Spain, not in Southern Portugal.

Near the copper mines in the Pyrenees. Mostly ydna DF27 but some L21 as well. The L21 that eventually travelled to places like Ross island - also after the copper.

@Taranis


The more archaic clades are generally found in the vicinity of central Europe, and the distribution of the major subclades would also suggest that the entry into Western Europe as a whole was from Central Europe, and not from Southwestern Iberia, where the oldest Bell-Beaker sites are to be find.

Copper imo.

Yes to central Europe etc as a trade network involving copper working imo with strands extending into the periphery of Europe looking for sources of metal and the expansions occurring from places where they found it e.g. Pyrenees, SW Britain and Ireland. Short-lived as larger expansions came the other way.

edit:

sticking to the theme are there any chalcolithic era mines in western Norway?

edit2:

later copper mines at Roros, Visnes, Kvikne and silver at Kongsberg, any of those map onto areas of high L21?

Expredel
01-05-15, 04:04
From a linguistic perspective, your claim is untenable. The Celtic languages are demonstrably Indo-European languages, not Afroasiatic languages. They're related with the Indo-Iranic languages of the Indian subcontinent and the extinct Tocharian languages of the Tarim basin, not with the Berber languages, Ancient Egyptian, Chadic (e.g. Hausa), Kushitic (e.g. Somali) or Semitic (e.g. Arabic and Hebrew). The supposed similarities between Celtic and Afroasiatic are only with the modern (Insular) Celtic languages, there is no such similarity between the ancient Celtic languages (like Celtiberian and Gaulish), which were much more similar to Ancient Greek and Sanskrit.
Celtic is Indo-European but the non-Continental branch has Afro-Asiatic influences. Not sure if the same study examines Continental Celtic. Any sources for the link between Celtic and Greek?



There's also, I might add, zero evidence for linguistic presence of the Celts in Morocco. Not from place names, not from loanwords in the Berber languages.

The Celts would have left North Africa due to desertification 3000 BC and would have only been in the region for 500 to 2000 years. I don't think Moroccan linguistic ties have been studied so it's a grey area.



By saying R1b-L21 is "exclusively" Celtic, you're also ignore the distribution patterns of two other major western European subclades, R1b-U152 and R1b-U106, which both point much more to a Central European origin.
They do not and actually suggests North Africa as the point of origin, with two branches heading along the Atlantic coast and one branch heading east into the Mediterranean.



If L21 came long before the viking age, one would have expected it all over Scandinavia - or at least further inland, rather than being clustered around the coastal regions of the West were viking kingdoms just happen to emerge much later.
L21 is all over Scandinavia, just not in high frequencies.


The more archaic clades are generally found in the vicinity of central Europe, and the distribution of the major subclades would also suggest that the entry into Western Europe as a whole was from Central Europe, and not from Southwestern Iberia, where the oldest Bell-Beaker sites are to be find. If Southwestern Iberia was origin of Western European R1b, I'd expect the focus point of R1b diversity to be located there, not in Central Europe.
I've seen no solid studies on proto R1b L21, data shows there's no strong presence in Central Europe. I've seen one map but it lacked sources or credibility. North African DNA studies would be helpful, but they are all of poor quality. What is available shows a lot R1b, up to 10%.

Genetic diversity is not a solid argument for a population that moved rapidly. R1b also moved through Anatolia into Europe but those were different branches.

Source for cattle DNA:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8113.full

There was a better source with an ancient cattle DNA sample from Iberia but I can't find it right now. The sample was dated at 1700 BC.

Taranis
01-05-15, 20:34
Celtic is Indo-European but the non-Continental branch has Afro-Asiatic influences. Not sure if the same study examines Continental Celtic. Any sources for the link between Celtic and Greek?

Celtiberian and Gaulish are attested from short inscriptions (the Botorrita inscription is a good example). These languages generally had a SVO word order (similar to English or German, or Latin), and had a rich declension system just like Latin, classical Greek and Sanskrit. The supposed "Afroasiatic" features about the Insular Celtic language (VSO word order, which is very common in the Afroasiatic languages, and consonant mutations) must be a later innovation. Even if you hold the Insular Celtic model to be correct, and if you assume this was due to substrate influence (both questionable statements, in my opinion), then this would apply only to the pre-Celtic British Isles, not to all of Western Europe.

I'd pinpoint you to this recent (early 2015) paper by Anthony and Ringe on the Indo-European homeland. On page 203 is a comparison chart of the wheeled vehicle vocabulary, which includes Anatolian, Tocharian, Celtic, Italic (Latin), Greek, Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Notice the similarity of the Irish "roth" and Welsh "rhod" (both Insular Celtic languages) to Latin "rota", German "Rad", Lithuanian "ratas" and Sanskrit "rathas".

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812 (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812)


The Celts would have left North Africa due to desertification 3000 BC and would have only been in the region for 500 to 2000 years. I don't think Moroccan linguistic ties have been studied so it's a grey area.

They do not and actually suggests North Africa as the point of origin, with two branches heading along the Atlantic coast and one branch heading east into the Mediterranean.

Do you have any actual evidence for your hypothesis of such a North African homeland?

Taranis
01-05-15, 21:22
Returning to the Viking hypothesis, I'd like to point out that the Vikings are known to have raided (and otherwise intensely interacted with) both Scotland (the Vikings were also heavily implicated in the demise of the Picts as a distinct identity in Scotland) and Ireland. Further, the Vikings are known to have been a society that practiced slavery, therefore the hypothesis strikes me as quite plausible.

mihaitzateo
01-05-15, 21:42
Well actually Irish people were allied to Norwegian vikings,fighting against other Irish people.
That happened at Battle of Clontarf,when Norwegian Vikings allied to some Irish people fought against other Irish people.
So I think Norwegian Vikings took between Irish warriors,who settled in SW Norway and also participated in settling of Iceland.
I also made a supposition that some Celts raided in SW Norway,as revenge for Vikings raiding in Ireland and Scotland and conquered Iceland:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31122-Did-Celts-raided-or-settled-in-Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Largs
It is possible that some Scottish chieftains were allied to Norwegian Vikings so from these,some Scottish warriors joined Norwegian Vikings and later,went and settled in SW Norway.
I understand that under some harsh Scottish king,some Scots left Scotland and went to settle in Iceland.

I think the term of ethnicity in those times did not even existed,people were bound to their chieftains,not carrying about common language,but carrying about common interests.

Tomenable
01-05-15, 23:32
I'm not sure why are you even debating whether Celts settled in Iceland when this is a confirmed fact.

Just check Medieval historical sources such as the "Book of Settlements" and the "Book of Icelanders".

About 1/4 of Y-DNA and about 2/3 of mtDNA of modern Icelanders descent from those Insular Celts:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/fig_tab/6800661f1.html#figure-title

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/images/6800661f1.jpg

A small archipelago off the south coast of Iceland - Vestmannaeyjar - is even named after Celtic people.

Tomenable
02-05-15, 00:01
By the way, Celts had discovered Iceland long before Vikings (already in Ancient times), and they regularly visited it, but did not settle in large numbers because the climate was (at that time) too cold. However, there existed hermitages of Irish monks in Iceland, and such hermitages (already abandoned) were also found by first Viking settlers. It is also possible - but this issue is controversial - that there had existed some Celtic settlements, with some families (not just hermit monks) in Iceland already before first Vikings came.

Here is what one Polish biologist and amateur historian Grzegorz Jagodziński wrote about that (translation):

"In 330 BC Greek mathematician, astronomer and geographer Pytheas of Massalia reached the coasts of Scotland, and local inhabitants informed him about the existence of a land in the north, that he later called Thule (it was most probably Iceland).

Until year ca. 400 AD climate was too harsh to allow settlement in Iceland, but despite that the island was being regularly visited by British sailors - it is proven by discoveries of coins from that period. Most likely summertime fishing and hunting expeditions were taking place there. It is probable, that some ships reached also the coasts of Greenland.

Plutarch (ca. 40 - 120 AD) informs us about the existence of an island located far away to the west of Great Britain, bearing a name similar to the name of titan Kronos from Greek myths. The Sea of Kronos is how later the basin between Iceland and Greenland was referred too. "Inhabitants of Kronland" are mentioned in a document from 834 AD. The name "Greenland" was invented only later by the Vikings, in order to attract settlers (it was a typical gimmick!).

After 400 AD climate started to gradually get warmer, encouraging Pictish and Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles, called by the Vikings "people of the West" (Vestmenn), to organize regular sea cruises to Iceland, aimed at finding exotic resources, such as eiderdown, which were later being exported to the Mediterranean world. For sea travels Picts and Britons were using wooden ships, while Irish people were using currachs, covered by bovine skins. Such ships could transport up to 20 people, they were propelled by sails and oars.

Maritime activity of Picts and Celts lasted until the 7th century AD. They maintained regular commercial contacts with France, Norway and the Baltic countries. From that period originated the legend about the the Voyage of Saint Brendan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan#The_Voyage_of_Saint_Brendan) [recorded ca. 900 AD], who supposedly reached Iceland, Greenland, the island of Jan Mayen and maybe even the coast of America.

In some written records Greenland was referred to as Albania, which was Latin equivalent of Norse term Hvitramannaland ("White Men's Land"), or of Norse term Irland Mikkla ("Great Ireland") – in that latter case, it could be a name of a Celtic settlement in Greenland.

All of this proves that Iceland and Greenland were well-known, maybe even settled, already in period preceeding Viking voyages."

PaleBlueDot
02-05-15, 00:09
I'm not sure why are you even debating whether Celts settled in Iceland when this is a confirmed fact.

Just check Medieval historical sources such as the "Book of Settlements" and the "Book of Icelanders".

About 1/4 of Y-DNA and about 2/3 of mtDNA of modern Icelanders descent from those Insular Celts:

A small archipelago off the south coast of Iceland - Vestmannaeyjar - is even named after Celtic people.

So, some of these half-celtic, half-viking people made their way back to (mainly) west coast Norway, and so did some slaves, thus nicely explaining why there is some concentration of L21 there? (and in Sicily after the Norman conquest)?

Tomenable
02-05-15, 00:21
Celts reached also the Faroe Islands before Vikings:

"Around A.D. 825, an Irish monk named Dicuil wrote a book, Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae, (Measure/description of the sphere of the earth) in which he states, " [A] set of small islands, nearly all separated by narrow stretches of water; in these for nearly a hundred years hermits sailing from our country, Ireland, have lived. But just as they were always deserted from the beginning of the world, so now because of the Northman pirates they are emptied of anchorites, and are filled with countless sheep and very many diverse kinds of seabirds." The physical description of these islands fits the Faeroes well, as does the name, which means Sheep Islands. It seems likely that the Irish had reached the Faeroes first, and that the Vikings came to these lands after raiding and trading in the Western Isles, instead of by accident as the sagas suggest.

Dicuil also describes another island, Thule, beyond the Faeroes, where the water is mostly ice-free and the sun barely dips below the horizon around the summer solstice (making it bright enough at midnight that a man can "pick the lice out of his shirt...as in broad daylight.") This description certainly fits Iceland well, and early maps often label Iceland as 'Thule.' If this is a reference to Iceland, how does an Irish monk writing 50 years before the settlement of Iceland by Vikings know so much about it? Dicuil says that priests had been staying on this island during the summer months for 30 years (i.e. around A.D. 795)."

http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/iceland/history.html

Tomenable
02-05-15, 00:26
So, some of these half-celtic, half-viking people made their way back to (mainly) west coast Norway, and so did some slaves, thus nicely explaining why there is some concentration of L21 there? (and in Sicily after the Norman conquest)?

Probably yes. In Iceland it seems that most of Celtic settlers were originally slaves, even if later liberated. Some of them also escaped (check the story of Hjörleifur) and established their own settlements - which might explain some names of Celtic origin, or names indicating Celtic ownership - such as the name of Vestmannaeyjar archipelago. Here is the story of Hjörleifur:

http://www.icelandicroots.com/irish-roots-in-iceland/


(...)

The town of Akranes was first settled in 880 by Irish settlers. They created one of the first Christian settlements in Iceland. Each summer, Akranes has a week-long celebration called, Írskir Dagur (Irish Days).

The Vestmannaeyjar (Westmann Islands) are named after Irish slaves that murdered Hjörleifur, the brother of Ingólfur Arnarson. Ingólfur is known as the first permanent settler in Iceland and is said to have founded Reykjavík.

(...)

Other Irish place names are the farm Írafell and the nearby mountain, Írafellsbunga (Mountain of the Irish) in northwest Iceland and Kjaransvík (Ciaran’s Bay) in the Westfjörðs among other Irish place names.

An interesting saint of Ireland is St. Brendan the Navigator. He was born in 484 in County Kerry, Ireland. Some people say that he and his crew sailed to Iceland, Greenland, and even to America 400 years before Leifur Erikíksson. So, maybe the Irish discovered America! Literature attributed to his travels describe “pelting with flaming, foul smelling rocks” such as watching a volcano and “towering crystals” such as what we now call icebergs.

Here is a link to a longer story about St. Brendan (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/12/1119328/-Ancient-Ireland-Did-Saint-Brendan-Discover-the-Americas).

(...)


As for Norway - it seems that Norwegian-British-Irish contacts actually predate Viking incursions into Britain. There could be some Celtic merchants visiting Norway until the 7th century AD, maybe also later during the Viking Age some Celts settled there and intermarried with locals (intermarriage could also take place in Britain, and such mixed people could come back to Norway). Some Celts could be incorporated into Viking ranks and units (either as ethnic Celts, or assimilated by Norse people and then incorporated into Viking ranks).

Finally, Celtic slaves as well could be there (apart from Celtic freemen vistors / settlers).

PaleBlueDot
02-05-15, 00:45
As for Norway - it seems that Norwegian-British-Irish contacts actually predate Viking incursions into Britain. There could be some Celtic merchants visiting Norway until the 7th century AD, maybe also later during the Viking Age some Celts settled there and intermarried with locals (intermarriage could also take place in Britain, and such mixed people could come back to Norway). Some Celts could be incorporated into Viking ranks and units (either as ethnic Celts, or assimilated by Norse people and then incorporated into Viking ranks).

Finally, Celtic slaves as well could be there (apart from Celtic freemen vistors / settlers).

It may be that this is just too technical genetic lingo for me to understand, but what are the reasons to think that this contact predates the viking incursions? We aren't talking about huge numbers of people, although the population of Norway about doubled during the viking age it was still pretty low, almost nothing compared to the British isles and Ireland. Also there were strong links between Norway and her "colonies" during the entire viking age.

Tomenable
02-05-15, 00:52
Yes, more likely R1b-L21 settled in Norway during the Viking Age, not before it.

Regarding Hvitramannaland, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ireland

Taranis
02-05-15, 14:26
By the way, Celts had discovered Iceland long before Vikings (already in Ancient times), and they regularly visited it, but did not settle in large numbers because the climate was (at that time) too cold. However, there existed hermitages of Irish monks in Iceland, and such hermitages (already abandoned) were also found by first Viking settlers. It is also possible - but this issue is controversial - that there had existed some Celtic settlements, with some families (not just hermit monks) in Iceland already before first Vikings came.

Here is what one Polish biologist and amateur historian Grzegorz Jagodziński wrote about that (translation):

"In 330 BC Greek mathematician, astronomer and geographer Pytheas of Massalia reached the coasts of Scotland, and local inhabitants informed him about the existence of a land in the north, that he later called Thule (it was most probably Iceland).

Until year ca. 400 AD climate was too harsh to allow settlement in Iceland, but despite that the island was being regularly visited by British sailors - it is proven by discoveries of coins from that period. Most likely summertime fishing and hunting expeditions were taking place there. It is probable, that some ships reached also the coasts of Greenland.

Plutarch (ca. 40 - 120 AD) informs us about the existence of an island located far away to the west of Great Britain, bearing a name similar to the name of titan Kronos from Greek myths. The Sea of Kronos is how later the basin between Iceland and Greenland was referred too. "Inhabitants of Kronland" are mentioned in a document from 834 AD. The name "Greenland" was invented only later by the Vikings, in order to attract settlers (it was a typical gimmick!).

After 400 AD climate started to gradually get warmer, encouraging Pictish and Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles, called by the Vikings "people of the West" (Vestmenn), to organize regular sea cruises to Iceland, aimed at finding exotic resources, such as eiderdown, which were later being exported to the Mediterranean world. For sea travels Picts and Britons were using wooden ships, while Irish people were using currachs, covered by bovine skins. Such ships could transport up to 20 people, they were propelled by sails and oars.

Maritime activity of Picts and Celts lasted until the 7th century AD. They maintained regular commercial contacts with France, Norway and the Baltic countries. From that period originated the legend about the the Voyage of Saint Brendan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan#The_Voyage_of_Saint_Brendan) [recorded ca. 900 AD], who supposedly reached Iceland, Greenland, the island of Jan Mayen and maybe even the coast of America.

In some written records Greenland was referred to as Albania, which was Latin equivalent of Norse term Hvitramannaland ("White Men's Land"), or of Norse term Irland Mikkla ("Great Ireland") – in that latter case, it could be a name of a Celtic settlement in Greenland.

All of this proves that Iceland and Greenland were well-known, maybe even settled, already in period preceeding Viking voyages."

To my knowledge, there's no archaeological evidence that Iceland was inhabited by anyone before the Vikings arrived, and the statement that Iceland was already inhabited in Pytheas' time is certainly incorrect. If I'm wrong there, I'd like to see the sources for that. Concerning Thule, the identification of it with Iceland is doubtful for that reason. In my opinion, Shetland was much more probably Thule, located just north of the Orkneys, but long-since inhabited by humans.

PaleBlueDot
02-05-15, 14:38
Even if a few monks were living in Iceland, there is no way they are the reason for the huge amount of R1b-L21 in Icelanders, which was mentioned to help explain R1b-L21 in Norway, which is what this thread is about.

mihaitzateo
05-05-15, 18:56
Even if a few monks were living in Iceland, there is no way they are the reason for the huge amount of R1b-L21 in Icelanders, which was mentioned to help explain R1b-L21 in Norway, which is what this thread is about.
Well who said that were only "few monks" there?
I think Norwegian vikings that settled Iceland were carrying also R1B-L21 from mixing with Celtic people.
I think that idea with Vikings having Celts as slaves is just fairy tales. Maybe they had a few Celtic slaves but that does not explain all the R1B-L21 in Ireland.
Why there are no other HGs that are present in Ireland&Scotland&Wales,the Vikings were making genetic testing to the Celtic people that they were taking slaves and if they were not R1B-L21,they were not taking them?
Come on,lol.

PaleBlueDot
06-05-15, 08:51
Well who said that were only "few monks" there?
I think Norwegian vikings that settled Iceland were carrying also R1B-L21 from mixing with Celtic people.
I think that idea with Vikings having Celts as slaves is just fairy tales. Maybe they had a few Celtic slaves but that does not explain all the R1B-L21 in Ireland.
Why there are no other HGs that are present in Ireland&Scotland&Wales,the Vikings were making genetic testing to the Celtic people that they were taking slaves and if they were not R1B-L21,they were not taking them?
Come on,lol.

Which haplotypes you find among the inhabitants of the Celtic fringe, but not among Scandinavians?

mihaitzateo
06-05-15, 23:03
First,in Ireland&Scotland not all R1B is R1B-L21, there are other R1B branches. For example R1B-U152 which is absent in West Norway.
Another HG present only in Ireland and Scotland is I2-disles.
Again ,absent from other places than Scotland&Ireland.

PaleBlueDot
07-05-15, 01:01
First,in Ireland&Scotland not all R1B is R1B-L21, there are other R1B branches. For example R1B-U152 which is absent in West Norway.
Another HG present only in Ireland and Scotland is I2-disles.
Again ,absent from other places than Scotland&Ireland.

I'm pretty sure R1B-U152 is not completely absent anywhere in Norway, just very uncommon.
R1B-U152 is also very uncommon in the "Celtic fringe" which was where most viking activity took place. In Ireland, only in certain areas up to 5-10% carry this haplotype, according to the map on this website. If as much as 10% of male lines in Norway came only from this "hotspot" in Ireland, R1B-U152 would still be hardly noticeable in Norwegians, less than one percent. I wouldn't expect to find it colored on a map.

I'm just curious, why are you so certain that the vikings had very few Celtic slaves, and why are you so concerned with this particular issue?

MOESAN
07-05-15, 16:30
it seems now evident enough the most common Y-R1b on the N-W shores and close inlands of Europe at Bronze Age were L21, and the most of the P312 there were their "fatherlike" brothers - thinking they were already Celts is not proved but sensible - the U152 variant, was centered more around Upper Rhine and W-Alps at these times -
NOTHING tell us that both canNOT have reached W-Norway before Roman times, in one or two waves (the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields) - traces of Beakers are found in Scandinavia, if I'm not wrong, and "tumuli boulevards" from S Sweden to North - the maybe predecessors Corded men didn't bury under Tumuli -
all that deserves to be precised by archeologists (I've only mentions of it, not complete devoted books) -
so, some R-L21 at Bronze, some Irish or Briton L21 slavs and perhaps more L21 "associated" Gall-Gaedhil (sorry if I mistake the graphy) when Irishmen took over the business of "vikingery" , because I don't see to clearly male slaves having a so blessed genetic prosperity -
only blind's thoughts without subclades and haplos datations

Greying Wanderer
07-05-15, 18:55
it seems now evident enough the most common Y-R1b on the N-W shores and close inlands of Europe at Bronze Age were L21, and the most of the P312 there were their "fatherlike" brothers - thinking they were already Celts is not proved but sensible - the U152 variant, was centered more around Upper Rhine and W-Alps at these times -
NOTHING tell us that both canNOT have reached W-Norway before Roman times, in one or two waves (the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields) - traces of Beakers are found in Scandinavia, if I'm not wrong, and "tumuli boulevards" from S Sweden to North - the maybe predecessors Corded men didn't bury under Tumuli -
all that deserves to be precised by archeologists (I've only mentions of it, not complete devoted books) -
so, some R-L21 at Bronze, some Irish or Briton L21 slavs and perhaps more L21 "associated" Gall-Gaedhil (sorry if I mistake the graphy) when Irishmen took over the business of "vikingery" , because I don't see to clearly male slaves having a so blessed genetic prosperity -
only blind's thoughts without subclades and haplos datations

(the rising of U152 seems more linked to Iron or pre-Iron Urnfields)

if the sequence in technology providing a critical advantage was
- farming
- copper
- bronze
- iron
then you might expect expansion events to follow a similar sequence with the source regions for those expansions in the metal ages being regions that had sources of the metal.

So neolithic expansions from sources of farming/herding, copper age expansions from sources of copper; iron age expansions from sources of iron etc - in particular from those regions where the metal was easiest to reach i.e. on or near the surface.

mihaitzateo
09-05-15, 12:55
I'm pretty sure R1B-U152 is not completely absent anywhere in Norway, just very uncommon.
R1B-U152 is also very uncommon in the "Celtic fringe" which was where most viking activity took place. In Ireland, only in certain areas up to 5-10% carry this haplotype, according to the map on this website. If as much as 10% of male lines in Norway came only from this "hotspot" in Ireland, R1B-U152 would still be hardly noticeable in Norwegians, less than one percent. I wouldn't expect to find it colored on a map.

I'm just curious, why are you so certain that the vikings had very few Celtic slaves, and why are you so concerned with this particular issue?
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.

Taranis
09-05-15, 13:47
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.

I don't think the term "Celt" shows up even in a single instance in the Norse Sagas. :laughing: Seriously though, you seem to have a very distorted view on both the Vikings and medieval Ireland. As a matter of fact, the Vikings are known to have raided Ireland - and the area of modern Scotland. For centuries you had the Picts who inhabited the northwest of Britain, yet in the 9th century, coinciding roughly with the startup of the Viking period, the Picts disappear as a distinct polity, to be replaced by the kingdom of Alba ("Scotland"), a Gaelic-speaking entity. Such a "transformation" was only possible, in my opinion, because Pictland was hit heavily by the Viking raids. The Pictish men, I would imagine, would have been heavily R1b-L21. Therefore, I do find the slavery hypothesis compelling.

Besides, as a technical note, neither the Irish nor the Britons refered to themselves as "Celts", nor were they refered to as such (even though they obviously were, linguistically). The modern usage of the term "Celts" (as a collective for the Gaelic and Brythonic-speaking peoples) we actually owe to linguistics...

PaleBlueDot
09-05-15, 17:26
Those things with Celtic Slaves are fairy tales from Norwegian Sagas.
If we take those as good than we should think that Freya and Odin exists.
Come on,be serious.
Sure,Norwegian vikings were raiding in Celtic lands,but Celts were harsh warriors,which were scaring Vikings.
So what is told in Sagas from Norway with Vikings always beating hard Celtic people is very untrue and un-accurate from a historical point of view. In fact,it seems that Celtic people were not having such good weaponry and fighting techniques as Vikings had,but were much stronger from a physical point of view.
So how a Viking family could have kept a physical beast as slave?
Are you joking,those Celts were killing Vikings bare handed,if the Vikings would not have had the weapon,near.
As I already told,is a story about some very harsh Celtic king,in which times people from Scotland (or Ireland?) left and went to settle in Iceland and Norway.These people were very likely Norse-Gaels people. So here is I think a source of R1b-L21 from SW Norway and Iceland.

We could argue endlessly about each of your specific points, e.g. whether the sagas were a useful source of information, or whether it is possible to keep physically strong slaves. I do not want to get into that.
It seems clear to me that this idea that vikings kept no Celtic slaves is pure speculation on your parts, speculation which goes completely against the historical consensus, and is based on transparent and very strong bias in favor of Celts.
Using this bias as basis to explain haplotype frequency in different areas is about as unscientific as it gets. Science should be a tool to better understand the world, not to confirm your own views.

mihaitzateo
09-05-15, 17:50
Well there was an Arab writer who told about Vikings taking Slavic slaves.
However,I do not see any Slavic Y DNA in Sweden,as I see R1B-L21,in Norway.

MOESAN
09-05-15, 19:13
Mihaitzateo
I will not correct you about naming and term as 'Celts': I understand what you want to say no problem -
but your high restpect for "celtic" courage doesn't prevent they had hard and bad time with the Vikings and they suffered more than little History says -
surely some irish people reacted with courage but the versatiie and speedy way Vikings did war was unseasy to oppose to - Britons and Anglo-Saxons of these times, a bit less fit to war (too cultivated? Christianism? to large lands to defend? too heavy armies?) avowed all of them their fear in front of Vikings even if sometimes they affronted them with success (I dont speak here about your affirmation that Celts were physically stronger than Vkings!)
that said, I think some "Celtic" slaves were imported in Norway, even if I don' think all the Y-R1B-L21 could be caused by their presence) for the reasons I wrote above in previous post

mihaitzateo
10-05-15, 19:27
Well look at Strongest man championship how can you explain that Iceland excels there,however,Sweden,do not?
As for Norway,1/3 of their maternal lines are of Celtic descent.If you will study you will see Norwegians from SW,where are more paternal lines from Celts are strongest Scandinavians,are physical.
Vikings were masters of using weapons,this is how they were beating others and also,they were experts in not fighting with a whole army,but guerilla wars.

If you remember in Scotland there is a traditional custom,of people throwing very heavy stones.
There are also very strong people,those from Baltic countries.
Vikings raided also in Baltic countries and Old Prussians were beaten hard to Teutonic knights.

PaleBlueDot
10-05-15, 20:56
Well look at Strongest man championship how can you explain that Iceland excels there,however,Sweden,do not?
As for Norway,1/3 of their maternal lines are of Celtic descent.If you will study you will see Norwegians from SW,where are more paternal lines from Celts are strongest Scandinavians,are physical.
Vikings were masters of using weapons,this is how they were beating others and also,they were experts in not fighting with a whole army,but guerilla wars.

If you remember in Scotland there is a traditional custom,of people throwing very heavy stones.
There are also very strong people,those from Baltic countries.
Vikings raided also in Baltic countries and Old Prussians were beaten hard to Teutonic knights.

Where did you find that 1/3 of maternal lines in Norway are of Celtic descent?

Greying Wanderer
10-05-15, 21:39
Well look at Strongest man championship how can you explain that Iceland excels there,however,Sweden,do not?

Giant* ancestry.

(* where giant = mountain dwellers with above average archaic ancestry)

mihaitzateo
11-05-15, 22:44
50% if not 66% of maternal lines in Iceland are of Celtic origins.
How do I know if those people who moved there were not actually Norse-Gaels people?
This is making much more sense,that Norse-Gaels people from Scotland and Ireland,who were allied to Vikings settled in Iceland,than telling all those maternal and paternal lines are from Celtic Slaves.
This is what I have seen in some article that 1/3 of Norwegian maternal lines are of Celtic origin.

PaleBlueDot
12-05-15, 00:34
This is what I have seen in some article that 1/3 of Norwegian maternal lines are of Celtic origin.

Any reference for this? I didn't know that you any such study of Norwegians existed.

Regio X
12-05-15, 16:18
By the way, the G-L497 has been associated to the Celts (I don't know if correctly). It is present on the Norwegian coast (also in Britain, mainly Wales). More specifically, the haplogroup G-F1300 (down the supposed "alpine" L42) - about 1000 years old -, still found only in Norway.

mihaitzateo
12-05-15, 20:07
Well PaleBlueDot I do not have that reference.
A thing,why Strongest Viking contest was being held in Iceland,but not in Norway?
Besides,Iceland got only 300.000 inhabitants ,but lots of strongman and had 2 champions at Strongest man.
They also have championship of throwing stones,as seen in Scots. So I think this is the source of their ancestry (Scotland) ,main source.
Please look a little at this movie,those Icelandic strong man are not Nordid people,their back head is very flat,as seen at Scots highlanders if I am remembering right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM

mihaitzateo
24-05-15, 21:19
Any reference for this? I didn't know that you any such study of Norwegians existed.
Well I did not found any study about Norwegian mtDNA but here is a study about mtDNA of Icelanders:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631115
Overall,62.5% of the maternal lines in Iceland are from British Isles.

Fluffy
24-05-15, 22:47
By the way, the G-L497 has been associated to the Celts (I don't know if correctly). It is present on the Norwegian coast (also in Britain, mainly Wales). More specifically, the haplogroup G-F1300 (down the supposed "alpine" L42) - about 1000 years old -, still found only in Norway.

What is your source for this information? Never seen anybody say G2a L497 is Celtic. Haven't read any papers saying it is as well.

MOESAN
24-05-15, 23:35
Well PaleBlueDot I do not have that reference.
A thing,why Strongest Viking contest was being held in Iceland,but not in Norway?
Besides,Iceland got only 300.000 inhabitants ,but lots of strongman and had 2 champions at Strongest man.
They also have championship of throwing stones,as seen in Scots. So I think this is the source of their ancestry (Scotland) ,main source.
Please look a little at this movie,those Icelandic strong man are not Nordid people,their back head is very flat,as seen at Scots highlanders if I am remembering right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A7woRoVwyM

how can you measure the occiput flatness of people on these pictures: and keep in mind that the training these men have reinforce their neckback and confuse the observer (look at rugby props and rugby forwards a sa whole) . NO these men are not brachycephals for the most, nor are the Icelandic men nor are the highland Scots as a whole, and I know about the matter. Icelndic people are not pure 'nordid' as you say but they are more 'nordid' than any other type. CI 1950: 78 (dolicho+meso)
concerning these pure force sports, Iceland people are found of it and concentrate upon it more than any other population, what partly explain their good results (helped by a lot of anabolisants and other amphetamines: the most famous of them died at 22's from a cardiac break down caused by supposed "congenital" deforamtion, one can suppose an other cause to his hart deformation!). That said, I'm not laughing in their faces: they are solid people as a whole, but the first explanation I see is selection, not only a time but along several generation: all kinds of selection: nature, life, and choice of fellows for adventure (the emigrant colonists - when it is a personal choice and not the research of a refuge in war time - are as a mean a little stronger and higher than the average population of the country they live. AT least it seems it was the case some decennies ago so truer in Viking times).
No offense

mihaitzateo
25-05-15, 19:36
Well I remember that Icelanders at average head length are clustering with some Irish people,not with Norwegians.
As for R1-L21 in Norway,I was thinking,is not possible that some Icelanders moved from Iceland to SW Norway?

MOESAN
25-05-15, 20:05
Well I remember that Icelanders at average head length are clustering with some Irish people,not with Norwegians.
As for R1-L21 in Norway,I was thinking,is not possible that some Icelanders moved from Iceland to SW Norway?

Norway is unlevel for population (or were in the 1950's) - you' re right for ressemblance of measures between Irishmen and Icelanders but Danes, North Germans and WEST Norwegians have also very big heads, even if with a a bit hgher C-Index . the ressemblances were for skulls measures, but concerning other traits, irishmen are less close to icelanders.
That said, i agree that nothing can prevent some Icelanders to send Y-R1b to Western Norway - it is maybe not the only explanation...

mihaitzateo
25-05-15, 20:33
Well as absurd as it will sound,new studies shows Norwegian viking women traveled too.
So is possible that also some from that R1B-L21 was brought by Viking women who raided in British Isles and got pregnant with local Celtic males,from British Isles.

mihaitzateo
26-05-15, 23:05
Here a very interesting article taken from Wikipedia written in French,about R1B-L21:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b-L21
As is written there,some of the R1B-L21 from Norway is same as some R1B-L21 clade from Ireland.
So,that clade of R1B-L21 was not brought by Celtic Slaves,but it was brought by Irish people who were allied to Norwegian Vikins from SW Norway.
Check again the battle of Brian Boru against Norwegian Vikings allied to other Irish tribes.
A very plausible hypothesis is that a part of these Irish returned with Norwegian to SW Norway,after loosing the battle there.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 03:43
Here a very interesting article taken from Wikipedia written in French,about R1B-L21:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b-L21
As is written there,some of the R1B-L21 from Norway is same as some R1B-L21 clade from Ireland.
So,that clade of R1B-L21 was not brought by Celtic Slaves,but it was brought by Irish people who were allied to Norwegian Vikins from SW Norway.
Check again the battle of Brian Boru against Norwegian Vikings allied to other Irish tribes.
A very plausible hypothesis is that a part of these Irish returned with Norwegian to SW Norway,after loosing the battle there.

You also get R1b-L21 in the copper region of the Pyrenees so I still think it went from Iberia to Ireland to Norway following the copper.

mihaitzateo
27-05-15, 19:18
You also get R1b-L21 in the copper region of the Pyrenees so I still think it went from Iberia to Ireland to Norway following the copper.
That is a very interesting supposition.
It should be interested to see if there is any correlation between copper deposits in Norway,Great Britain and France and the presence of R1B-L21 in these countries.
I understand that in Bretagne in France R1b-L21 makes about 40-60% of the paternal lines there.

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 22:10
That is a very interesting supposition.
It should be interested to see if there is any correlation between copper deposits in Norway,Great Britain and France and the presence of R1B-L21 in these countries.
I understand that in Bretagne in France R1b-L21 makes about 40-60% of the paternal lines there.

Yes I should have mentioned Bretagne/Brittany as they also had very early mining.

MOESAN
29-05-15, 20:14
it's not stupid trying to link some Y-DNA dominant in a population to metals ores or other economic-power stuff but Y-L21 had cousins settled not too far and challengers also interested in metals ores - it is always difficult to link too tightly economy and population genetics - by the way we have here to prove the chronology you propose based upon copper prospection

xiaodragon
06-05-18, 00:14
There was a better source with an ancient cattle DNA sample from Iberia but I can't find it right now. The sample was dated at 1700 BC.

xiaodragon
06-05-18, 00:17
ancient mining did bring new comers to the scene.

xiaodragon
06-05-18, 00:18
That is a very interesting supposition.
It should be interested to see if there is any correlation between copper deposits in Norway,Great Britain and France and the presence of R1B-L21 in these countries.
I understand that in Bretagne in France R1b-L21 makes about 40-60% of the paternal lines there.

xiaodragon
06-05-18, 00:38
that clade of R1B-L21 was not brought by Celtic Slaves,but it was brought by Irish people who were allied to Norwegian Vikins from SW Norway.

CrazyDonkey
10-05-18, 05:42
If the BB's could get from Gaul or Iberia to Britain, they could have got from Britain to southwest Norway. Not that big of a leap. Were the BB's fishermen? Did they like herring, cod?