R1b in Iberian Peninsula, France and the British Islands

R1b can be used as marker about celtic expansion. I'll try to explain the common characteristics in Red Nordic ethnicity (the most important ethnicity in celt people). Not only we must look at hair or eyes colour. There are some important features...

r2.jpg


- Pheomelanin produces red skin in ancestrial ones, rosy and bloody skin, in mixes with other ethnicities, the bloody appearance tends to retreat to the face, and in the face, to cheeks, ears, in rest of body is voiced in parts where the bones are next to surface. People with a tendency to blush, have Red Nordic contributions.

- head; high and vertical frontal bone with prominent forebrains and prominent temporal bones. Larger cranial capacity (frontal bone) and sideward (temporal bones).

- Small pupils, dark blue colour in pure individuals (the dark green is by mixing whit brown eyed ancestors, light green needs the ice blue colour of I haplogroup)

- Strong jaw, squared, broad and robust jaw. Prominent and sharp chin, which seems to end in a fleshy ball

- Small mouth with extremely thin and narrow lips. The outline of the lips is not clearly defined, nor differenced from the rest of the skin.

- Others; Accelerated metabolism. Neoteny: very youthful look. Higher lactose and alcohol tolerance than any other ethnicities. Armenized RN have their orange hair get darker, turning to red and then auburn, while when mixed with White Nordids they have a sandy, somewhat flaming hair colour.



even if every thing is linked in Man (and other problems too, very often) - as do Taranis I find that this last discussion concerns more a classical anthropologic one - just an answer: under some lightings even a black haired Asiat or negroid African could show some reddish hues: you prove only if you do it that some dark haired european have not true black hue - nothing new, there are a lot of variants in homozygotic and more in heterizygotic human people colours from the almost white blond to the very jet dark colour... but here the topic is primarily "Y-R1b"!
no offense!

Those aren't hues. I had seen all him coat burning in front of me. It can be show under halogen lights too.
 
In spite of that, i don't want to center my explanations in phenotypes. i'll talk about celt expansions. I have noticed that mostly people only talk about one route of celt expansion... Why don't 2 or 3 or...

branches from a proto-protocelt populations, wich were divided in protocelts populations before their knowledge culminate in what is now known as Celtic culture. Such knowledge would evolve toward the same destination, they had a common base of knowledge.

If not, i suspect that proto-celt core is in SW iberia. By mounds of evidence.
 
Moesan, you have a point about autosomal and mitochondrial DNA, yes. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that:

1) there is no such thing as an "R1b race".

2) the origins of Y-Haplogroup R1b are clearly outside of Europe.

3) the modern dominance of R1b in Western Europe is the result of a founder effect during the late(st) Neolithic / early Bronze Age (again, Moeasan, if we are looking at mitochondrial/autosomal DNA, the picture is a very different one).

4) R1b in Western Europe (the clade R1b-L51 and it's "son" clades) is phylogenetically tied with other subclades of R1b found in Anatolia (L584) and the Balkans (ht35). By what route R1b entered Western Europe is unclear as of the moment.



5) the hypothesis that the distribution of R1b can be tied with the expansion from the Iberian Glacial Refuge at the end of the ice age has been thoroughly debunked at this point. Who claims otherwise, and I am very sorry that I have to say this, must be either unaware of the research results of the past four or so years (which, I hope, shouldn't be the case anymore after reading this), or wishes to consciously ignore these research results (for whatever reason).


I never said there was a specific Y-R1b "race" (the same for whatever Y-DNA big HG or subHG and any "race") - I think just that at a time point of History, a dominant Y-HG % can be associated with dominant phenotypic (among the autosomals) % or a steady enough admixture and that for centuries the propagation og this Y-HG can go along with the propagation of this admixture, even if in detail the %s can fluctuate - sure things change but not passing from 100% to 0% or the contrary in an wink - ma first aim was to say: it is almost naive believing and saying that "there is NO link and there HAS BEEN NEVER any link between some HGs and some autosomals genes (and too with some mt HGs)" -
long time ago I 've agreed ('accepted' would be better said because I 'm not a molecular DNA studies searcher)
that Y-R1b came from Asia - It changes nothing in the problem of dates we have here -
I would be very glad if it was proved that R1b came with I-E people at the Bronze Age (linguistically it would fit better to my believings) but even if I do not reject the possible I-E origin for our occidental R1bs I am still VERY AMAZED BY SO A DISTRIBUTION IN WESTERN EUROPE CAUSED BY A FOUNDER EFFECT PRODUCING IN A SO SHORT TIME A SO RICH BUNCH OF SUB-HGs, taking the strong side over Y-I through SOUTH AND NORTH at the same time or almost- so I feal pushed to think that maybe the I-E arrival or the Y-R1b (independantly) arrival could have found place earlier than thought by the most of people now...I said the scenario of R1b propagation could suit more than a period - I am a modest hobbyist and I never said the truth was with me: it is just a fealing in front of some geographical an demographic facts - I 'm not trying to do adepts! + As I already said I have a poor confidence in STRs datations -
concerning mtDNA, it seams to me that the distribution of mt HGs is disconnected from the other genes for a long time and surely from almost all the Y-DNA HGs... not by the fact that there would not be any statistical link but by the fact that the mutation rates are very different; we could consider that mtDNA (mother mediated) would be steadier, less quickly mixed with other mt populations but we see exactly the contrary: a level distribution in the whole Europe, or almost... mt DNA seams even more disconnected from autosomals


to conclude, I ALMOST agree with you but I wait facts that can make this theory less amazing concerning demography - founder effects need some conditions to be produced (low densities of population by instance and great dispersal ) even the male elite theory (very valid indeed) can not explain total reaplacement of male genetic pools -
with all my respect
 
R1b can be used as marker about celtic expansion.

Don't you want to narrow that down to subclades? Because a cursory glance at the few R1b P25- samples we have shows that R1b as a whole isn't Celtic.

- Small pupils, dark blue colour in pure individuals (the dark green is by mixing whit brown eyed ancestors, light green needs the ice blue colour of I haplogroup)

OK, even after ignoring all of your phenotypes that you like to associate with R1b, this doesn't make much sense. The spread of blue eyes into Europe maps pretty poorly with R1b... to me, it matches more closely to certain subclades of R1a+N1c, and I1. Since I1 has a young TMRCA, and probably didn't really expand until it was absorbed into a population that also contained R1a, that makes me think that the spread of blue eyes into Europe is probably linked to an R1a-dominant population. But even if I'm wrong, and, say, blue eyes are older than the westward spread of R1a, then R1b is still a poor match with the spread of blue eyes.

In spite of that, i don't want to center my explanations in phenotypes. i'll talk about celt expansions. I have noticed that mostly people only talk about one route of celt expansion... Why don't 2 or 3 or...

branches from a proto-protocelt populations, wich were divided in protocelts populations before their knowledge culminate in what is now known as Celtic culture. Such knowledge would evolve toward the same destination, they had a common base of knowledge.

If not, i suspect that proto-celt core is in SW iberia. By mounds of evidence.

Don't get your hopes up for a "single-origin-out-of-SW-Iberia" theory. I do, however, think that Celtic peoples are more ancient to the Atlantic region than the "purely-Halstatt/La-Tene" theory would suggest. So I think you're getting at an important point, at least, when you mention that there were probably multiple important routes of Celtic expansion. My initial thought is that Celtic languages evolved somewhere in Central or Western Europe from a common proto-Italo-Celtic, which had drifted from rather farther east. (I know that's not very specific, but it's tough to get more specific than that for now.) And after that, an Atlantic spread and a later Alpine Iron Age spread were both important. That's my guess for now, anyway... I think it fits nicely with the modern distributions of R1b-P312 and its subclades, as well as what we know about the Celtic languages and their complex familial relationships to one another.
 
to conclude, I ALMOST agree with you but I wait facts that can make this theory less amazing concerning demography - founder effects need some conditions to be produced (low densities of population by instance and great dispersal ) even the male elite theory (very valid indeed) can not explain total reaplacement of male genetic pools -
with all my respect

On the contrary, I think that genetic drift is often underrated, at least on the Y-line. Keep in mind that most ancient European cultures (and most ancient worldwide cultures for that matter) encouraged polygyny, but not polyandry. I think that's why we see rapid drift on the Y line, but not the mtDNA line.

Think about it this way: If a culture encourages an average of just under 2 wives per man, then we can expect about 1/2 of men every generation to pass on their Y line, with many more (say 9/10) women passing on their mtDNA line. So, in a generation of 200, we can expect the next generation of 200 to have 90 of the original mtDNA lines, but only 50 of the original Y lines. After 5 generations, 22 of the original Y lines have survived. After 10, 14 have. After 50, 4 have. Compare to the mtDNA line, which has 65 of the original lines after 5 generations, 48 after 10, and 16 after 50.
 
But even if I'm wrong, and, say, blue eyes are older than the westward spread of R1a, then R1b is still a poor match with the spread of blue eyes.
According to this study: "Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants" (you can find .pdf file on google) R1a existed in Europe 10,000 - 9,000 years ago.

When R1a (and R1b) migrated into Europe, R1* had a West Asian / Gedrosia aDNA identity / character . Later it mixed with the local European population and it transformed into an unique European identity.


That's why NorthWest European and West Asian aDNA are very very close to each other.
 
It's even possible that R1a was in Western Europe even before R1b or that R1a and R1b migrated into Europe from NorthWest Iranian Plateau ( / Kurdistan) at the same time.
 
If not, i suspect that proto-celt core is in SW iberia. By mounds of evidence.

I must second what Sparkey said: do not get your hopes high for such an idea.

This is a map that was published by Alexander Falileyev of the University of Aberystwyth in Wales. It shows the distribution of (Continental) Celtic place names inside the domain of the Roman Empire. As you can easily see from it, Celtic place names are most abundant in the north of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the southwest. How likely is it then that the Celtic-speaking peoples originated in the Southwest and then migrated across half of Europe from there?

According to this study: "Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants" (you can find .pdf file on google) R1a existed in Europe 10,000 - 9,000 years ago.

When R1a (and R1b) migrated into Europe, R1* had a West Asian / Gedrosia aDNA identity / character . Later it mixed with the local European population and it transformed into an unique European identity.


That's why NorthWest European and West Asian aDNA are very very close to each other.

Goga, the idea R1a = Indo-Europeans is quite a bit of a simplification of the matter, and the meme "one Haplogroup = one ethnic group" is certainly wrong.

Also, R1* as the original Indo-European Haplogroup is certainly wrong, as it vastly predates the presumed age of the Indo-European languages (regardless of which scenario you prefer) by many millennia.
 
Last edited:
Goga, the idea R1a = Indo-Europeans is quite a bit of a simplification of the matter, and the meme "one Haplogroup = one ethnic group" is certainly wrong.

Also, R1* as the original Indo-European Haplogroup is certainly wrong, as it vastly predates the presumed age of the Indo-European languages (regardless of which scenario you prefer) by many millennia.
Exactly! It's even possible that R1a folks got Indo-Europised by R1b & J2a folks from the Balkans.

Or that those folks (R1b & J2) were first part of the West-Asian Maykop culture and influenced and Indo-Europised Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. So that makes R1b (together with J2a) the original speakers of a Proto-Indo-European language.

I'm starting to believe that proto-Indo-Europeans were hg. R1b, J2 and & G2 folks involved somewhere around the Caucasus..
 
I always get the impression that R1a guys on internet forums tend to be very protective about their "exclusive" "Indo-Europeanness"... :unsure:
 
I must second what Sparkey said: do not get your hopes high for such an idea.

This is a map that was published by Alexander Falileyev of the University of Aberystwyth in Wales. It shows the distribution of (Continental) Celtic place names inside the domain of the Roman Empire. As you can easily see from it, Celtic place names are most abundant in the north of the Iberian peninsula, rather than the southwest. How likely is it then that the Celtic-speaking peoples originated in the Southwest and then migrated across half of Europe from there?

Por favor, acabemos con la DESINFORMACION. Aquí hay gente inteligente que se comporta como si no lo fuera. Eso simplemente me lleva a pensar, que su comportamiento está dirigido a entorpecer la comunicación, a ocultar la verdad, a desinformar. Pues no señores, los británicos no son arios, son ibéricos.

¿Qué clase de argumento es ese de que el origen celta no puede estar en Iberia porque hay más topónimos celtas en centroeuropa?

¿No hablan más personas español en América que en España? ¿No hay mas pelirrojos en USA que en Irlanda? ¿ no tiene más hojas un árbol en la copa que cerca del suelo?

El trabajo de B. Sykes se basa en 10000 muestras, veamos estos otros trabajos propagandísticos como andan de muestras....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO__hE1wNQU
 
Last edited:
Before you continue to accuse me of spreading false information, I'd politely suggest that you read the following papers and get a bit more up to date about the history of R1b:

1) "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages" (January 2010)
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285

2) "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" (August 2010)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/?tool=pubmed

3) "Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by men in the Neolithic dissemination" (August 2011)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract

4) "Emerging Genetic Patterns of the European Neolithic: Perspectives From a Late Neolithic Bell Beaker Burial Site in Germany" (March 2012)
http://uni-kiel.academia.edu/Cheryl..._Neolithic_Bell_Beaker_burial_site_in_Germany

Regarding Bryan Sykes, you are probably refering to this book. It is correct that in that book, he suggested that R1b originated on the Iberian peninsula. But, he published this book in 2006. He could not have known about the research that happened in the meantime when he wrote that book.

If you have finished reading the papers above then you will realize that it is very unlikely that R1b originated on the Iberian peninsula, and that is just as unlikely that R1b entered Western Europe from the Iberian peninsula.

Regarding the term "Aryan" (by that, I presume, you mean "Indo-European"), it's very probable that the people who brought R1b to Western Europe were Indo-Europeans themselves.

On the origin of the Celts, I'd like to repeat what Sparkey said, because I think that it summarizes the situation pretty neatly:

I do, however, think that Celtic peoples are more ancient to the Atlantic region than the "purely-Halstatt/La-Tene" theory would suggest. So I think you're getting at an important point, at least, when you mention that there were probably multiple important routes of Celtic expansion. My initial thought is that Celtic languages evolved somewhere in Central or Western Europe from a common proto-Italo-Celtic, which had drifted from rather farther east. (I know that's not very specific, but it's tough to get more specific than that for now.) And after that, an Atlantic spread and a later Alpine Iron Age spread were both important. That's my guess for now, anyway... I think it fits nicely with the modern distributions of R1b-P312 and its subclades, as well as what we know about the Celtic languages and their complex familial relationships to one another.
 
Pues no señores, los británicos no son arios, son ibéricos.

¿Qué clase de argumento es ese de que el origen celta no puede estar en Iberia porque hay más topónimos celtas en centroeuropa?
¿No hablan más personas español en América que en España? ¿No hay mas pelirrojos en USA que en Irlanda? ¿ no tiene más hojas un árbol en la copa que cerca del suelo?


No offense, just a remark: I do not understand your way of thinking! what is the link between the number of a present day language speakers and the core region of the ancient placenames in the ancestral place of this language? did the Spaniards erase their spanish placenames in Iberia when carrying their castellano da America??? No, I think- the only way to celtic placenames to be scarce in South Iberia is that Celts ware absent before, or were EARLY swept out from there without being dense there at anytime... that do not correspond to their apparently strong position in Iberia in Antiquity -
the single other explanation could be (when I try to follow you) that Celts colonized Southern Iberia at first time, BUT found (an) already settled population(s) there and already named old places AND colonized after that almost empty regions in Northern Iberia: it seams to me not to realistic for I know...
 
Estimados moesan y taranis.

Answer to Moesan:

With these examples i'd tried to explain that a place with most of something, don't means that this place was the origins of something.
Don't spaniards but iberian proto-celts don't need to delete anything. Just .they were the disorganized homeless from the end of Tartessos. In the begining of celt expansion, they don't want to stand long time in places where the sea can flood the land. So another tartessian peoples done, proto-celts not. They runaway. For understand proto-celts origins reading "cogotas" a vetton clan.

Taranis, nuestro mayor desencuentro parece estar en las fechas. Para usted r1b vino tardiamente, para nosotros, estaba en iberia desde el paleolitico

http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/bronceatlantico/2011/11/6/las-pistas-del-subclado-r1b1
 
Taranis, nuestro mayor desencuentro parece estar en las fechas. Para usted r1b vino tardiamente, para nosotros, estaba en iberia desde el paleolitico

http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/bronceatlantico/2011/11/6/las-pistas-del-subclado-r1b1

This was actually a rather interesting read, but I'm not sure it really supports anything you've been saying. If I'm understanding correctly (I don't speak Spanish), they present an objection to Maciamo's theories on the basis that Y-line drift overstates the impact of migrations, and that they don't expect this sort of drift to stand a chance in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, only the Neolithic and Paleolithic. They also engage Renfrew and Oppenheimer, basically accepting Oppenheimer's conclusion of an Iberia-to-Britain expansion of R1b, but indicating that they don't know how R1b could have expanded to Spain in the first place.

The main problem with this piece is that it doesn't engage L11 subclades. If it did, it would be clear that their acceptance of anything Oppenheimer concluded is nonsense. After considering the discrepancy between subclade distributions, it becomes clear that British R1b does not fit an out-of-Iberia model. They also fail to engage TMRCA calculations and ancient DNA studies (many of which have been performed since it was written), which support Maciamo's theory the best of the lot (although a case could be made for Renfrew, or a none-of-the-above option... just certainly not Oppenheimer).

I should also note that their declaration of YDNA as "neutral" in terms of selection is probably incorrect, as well as their assumption that migrating populations suddenly absorbed native populations, rather than gradually. As a result, their mathematical model doesn't show a lot other than that YDNA drifts a lot quicker than mtDNA, and overestimates certain migrations a lot more. But that's OK in Maciamo's theory, and in other theories, and we already knew that.
 
Estimados moesan y taranis.

Answer to Moesan:

With these examples i'd tried to explain that a place with most of something, don't means that this place was the origins of something.
Don't spaniards but iberian proto-celts don't need to delete anything. Just .they were the disorganized homeless from the end of Tartessos. In the begining of celt expansion, they don't want to stand long time in places where the sea can flood the land. So another tartessian peoples done, proto-celts not. They runaway. For understand proto-celts origins reading "cogotas" a vetton clan.

Taranis, nuestro mayor desencuentro parece estar en las fechas. Para usted r1b vino tardiamente, para nosotros, estaba en iberia desde el paleolitico

http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/bronceatlantico/2011/11/6/las-pistas-del-subclado-r1b1

sorry but it looks as a pre-concluded reasonment: you want to justify the low density of celtic placenames in Iberia by an unsteady way of life ran by a "fugitive population" of Celts fearing the searises? my maps of Andalusia do not show me low level lands, do they? -
and as said by Sparkey and yet by others, the present day knowledges about the late SNPs of Y-R1b do not show us a "out of Iberia" for the bulk of the R1bs in the Isles and in other places of Central and North-Eastern Europe - I 'm still unsure about the timing of the arrival of Y-R1b but this hesitation does not erase theses facts...
 
sorry but it looks as a pre-concluded reasonment: you want to justify the low density of celtic placenames in Iberia by an unsteady way of life ran by a "fugitive population" of Celts fearing the searises? my maps of Andalusia do not show me low level lands, do they? -and as said by Sparkey and yet by others, the present day knowledges about the late SNPs of Y-R1b do not show us a "out of Iberia" for the bulk of the R1bs in the Isles and in other places of Central and North-Eastern Europe - I 'm still unsure about the timing of the arrival of Y-R1b but this hesitation does not erase theses facts...
I haven't thought about fugitives in fear. Just peoples going to search safety.There is in "Golfo de Cadiz" an extended depression. "depresion betica o del Guadalquivir". Which was affected by mare-moto a few times. One of it destroyed Tartessos. http://otraorillahistoria.foroactivo.net/t2274-la-depresion-del-guadalquivir http://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depresión_Bética#section_1
 
I haven't thought about fugitives in fear. Just peoples going to search safety.There is in "Golfo de Cadiz" an extended depression. "depresion betica o del Guadalquivir". Which was affected by mare-moto a few times. One of it destroyed Tartessos. http://otraorillahistoria.foroactivo.net/t2274-la-depresion-del-guadalquivir http://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depresión_Bética#section_1

This is impossible. Tartessos still existed in the time of Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC. If there was a seaquake that occured in later times, it would have been recorded by ancient Greek authors. Sorry, but I'm under the impression you are just making this up to have a specious pretense to place the origin of the Celts in southwestern Iberia.

By the way, in my opinion it is more likely that the city of Tartessos was destroyed by the Phoenicians, who are well-known to have occupied the south of Iberia, and who founded cities like Cadiz, Malaga and Cartagena.
 
Last edited:
Around 1100 BCE Phoenician merchants founded the trading colony of Gadir or Gades (modern day Cádiz). In the 8th century BCE the first Greek colonies, such as Emporion (modern Empúries), were founded along the Mediterranean coast on the East, leaving the south coast to the Phoenicians. The Greeks are responsible for the name Iberia, after the river Iber (Ebro).

The natives of Tarshish were the original Celtic groups in Iberia and these appear to be the ancestors of the Basques also. However, Basque YDNA is R1b and their YDNA may have been an earlier form from K as we find the same K2 form among the Welsh and in Tyre and Malta. Tarshish ran naval expeditions from there across the Atlantic for centuries (see Cyrus Gordon’s work Before Columbus, Touchstone Press, 1972).

The K2 is now refered to T1, but actually it must be T1a as T1b is only in the north.

i doubt the phoenicians fully destroyed them , but I guess traded with them to relay goods to britain
 
The natives of Tarshish were the original Celtic groups in Iberia and these appear to be the ancestors of the Basques also. However, Basque YDNA is R1b and their YDNA may have been an earlier form from K as we find the same K2 form among the Welsh and in Tyre and Malta. Tarshish ran naval expeditions from there across the Atlantic for centuries (see Cyrus Gordon’s work Before Columbus, Touchstone Press, 1972).

Across the Atlantic? That's certainly nonsense. :startled:

By the way, it is also by no means clear if the Tartessians were really Celtic. What I mean is this: yes, John Koch of the university of Cardiff proposed that the "Tartessian" language may have been Celtic, but this language is known from the Algarve. The civilization and culture of Tartessos, however, was located in the Guadalquivir region in Andalusia. It is explained here.

i doubt the phoenicians fully destroyed them , but I guess traded with them to relay goods to britain

The Phoenicians (or, more accurately, the Carthaginians) conquered the areas of modern-day Andalusia.
 

This thread has been viewed 157841 times.

Back
Top