Black Irish come from R1b Iranians?

Sile said:
no offense taken

my overall opinion is based on the current people I work with or am related to via marriages.
I work with a russian from Socie and a moldovan, both females ( females are overall lighter in skin tone than men, so!!). Both are black haired ( natural ) and one has grey eyes and other pale blue eyes. both tan easily but both loose natural tan colour quickly as well. Both born in their countries, both under 30 years of age, both been in Australia less than 10 years.
Click to expand...

Atlantid-Pontid similarity comes to mind.
 
JQP4545 said:
here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):

View attachment 6035
Click to expand...

I think he is very good example of an average Irishman, illustrating well the Mediterranean-Northern blend (K12b). He would look out of place in both, northern Germany and southern Europe. But he would not at all look out of place in southern Germany, pointing toward a IE-connection. So I'm still undecided whether this type is more aboriginal atlantic or rather Indo-European.
 
MOESAN said:
very often I find worth in what you write but here I disagree, no offense: it is normal not always being of the same opinion...
you seem pretty sure of your story, I cannot guess as well as you:
my thoughts in disorder: the pale skins (today) seems more typical to N-W Europe than to East -
even in southern countries, SW show less numerous typically brunet white skins than S-E - even among Slavs I noted a % of very dark skins in comparison of latitude -
I 'm not sure at all dark haired light eyed light skinned people are typical of the 'gedrosian' component -
there is one or two black haired dark eyed relatively brunet skinned components among Irish people, even if very moderate
there is something close to an alpinish-lapponish component among Irish people, to , and other components hard to link to a precise global autosomal component (because the today poolings are for the most partially unsatisfying for me)
by the way, the lilly to pinkish white skin (freckled under sun) of a lot of Irishmen has nothing to do with the very greyish white skin of Baltic and Finnic regions - but I don't say you ever pretend that, it is just a statement of mine -
and Irish people (if I rely on Dodecad K12b, maybe not available?) has almost no 'caucasian' component, the same as Orcadians and Basques and Norwegians
the dark haired light eyed light skinned element is present too if less than in Ireland, and dicreasing gradually, among W-British people, W-Bretons, and in some part some other regions of W Europe but does not represent a dominent percentage, only in some parts of Ireland (West) - I don't know more, maybe this element has a tendancy to erythrism (red hairs or beards) - (red minority among black or verydark brown: no contradiction: red is not "light" but "reddish more than brownish" do not confuse)
&: superficially we could think in Mordvins concerning pigmentation but it is going very far! red hair and white skin among only certain tribes can be linked there to another kind of gene... but who knows??? there are living in steppes for a long time I presume...?
nos vad deoc'h a-benn ur wezh arall
Click to expand...

The same kind of coloring can appear, as someone else mentioned, in other countries, but without the person looking at all Irish...
http://www.atuvu.ca/img/serie/2/7/7/1/2771.jpg

I also doubt it has much, if anything, to do with the Gedrosia component, which, after all, is centered in the Balochi. I think it may appear when there has been an admixture between a predominantly "fairer" group, and one that is darker, there is a founder effect, and then the population remains relatively isolated, and drift brings the phenotype close to fixation. Of course, climatic factors are also important. A phenotype like this thrives in cloudy, rainy, places; it wouldn't do very well in areas of high solar radiation, which is one of the reasons, I think, that it appears so often in far northwestern Europe.

I also agree that the type of fair skin seen in eastern Europe and even in the Balkans is quite different from the fair skin even in places like my own northwest Italy, where, although the redheads are covered with freckles, the dark haired people with very fair skin tend not to freckle, and absolutely don't tan, or at least it's not what anyone else would call a tan. Freckling due to sun damage is another issue. I'd describe this kind of complexion as having a blue, not a ruddy undertone. The closest the cosmetics companies can come is "pale ivory" or "nude". :) Luckily, this complexion is also not prone to early wrinkling...I don't know the cause for that.

I'd like to just mention that your posts in this thread have been excellent; informative, but not dogmatic, and very reasoned. It's much appreciated, as are the posts others contributed that saved this thread...
 
Darker Irish people are because of Iberian admixture (no idea how that got in Great Britain) but also because most Celts seems to not have been red haired,but dark haired,with darker skin.
Look here an ancient picture (from 990,so more than 1000 yrs old),depicting people from 4 ethnicities/areas bringing gifts (offerings) to King Otto:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/4_Gift_Bringers_of_Otto_III.jpg
As you can see,those from Gallia,are darkest and they have black hair.
There are also darker Norwegians 4_Gift_Bringers_of_Otto_III.jpg,so is clear the darker skin is not only from Iberian admixture,since most Norwegians are quite low on Iberian (7% or so,even lower,on average).
People seems to forget that most Celtic populations mixed with Germanic people,this happened in France,Great Britain,Switzerland etc.
Were the mix was not that significant,as happened in Spain,for example,people are still quite dark.
 
My understanding is that paleolithic Europeans('Cro-Magnons') most likely had dark hair/eyes, and, isn't it true that there's quite a bit of continuity from the paleolithic populations in the British isles, outside of the(obviously imported) y-chromosomal majority? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that many inhabitants of the isles should have dark hair/eyes?
 
skaheen15 said:
My understanding is that paleolithic Europeans('Cro-Magnons') most likely had dark hair/eyes, and, isn't it true that there's quite a bit of continuity from the paleolithic populations in the British isles, outside of the(obviously imported) y-chromosomal majority? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that many inhabitants of the isles should have dark hair/eyes?
Click to expand...

Since darker people seem to be more common in certain areas (northern Wales, western Ireland, certain parts of Norway) I have wondered whether they're the descendants of paleolithic populations. However, some people seem to think that darker populations in fringe areas are the descendants of neolithic populations. It would be interesting to test the DNA of some of these people to see if there's any correlation. Of course, a person's mtDNA and Y DNA aren't necessarily indicative of what their main ancestry is. Perhaps autosomal DNA could clarify this issue.
 
Aberdeen said:


some people seem to think that darker populations in fringe areas are the descendants of neolithic populations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's that as well, but I'm pretty sure that, to whatever extent migration played a part in the spread of the neolithic revolution, there was less to the British isles, and to northern Europe in general, then there was to Italy, the Balkans, and so on. In other words, less migration and more diffusion. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure that several factors are behind the 'black Irish' phenomenon, and, naturally, you see dark hair/eyes scattered around most of northern Europe if you're looking, to varying degrees. I'm always skeptical of any single-bullet explanation for things like that.
 
Sile said:
My Irish friend is a black Irish, he and his father state the name comes from the Spanish armada sailors which where not butchered by the Irish after their ships sank rounding the north of Scotland and running down past Ireland to get back to Spain.
It refers to their olive skin.
Click to expand...
yeah but that is just an old myth long held in Ireland. Even most geneticists discount that. How many "Black Irish" are there in Ireland? a few, handful of soldiers wouldn't be enough to account for that.

common sense says, the most likely source is from neolithic-farmer settlers in Ireland who would have come from both spain and other parts of western europe, at the time into Ireland.

The source for the Black Irish is probably the same source for the stereotypical dark Welshman, which again is mostly likely from a neolithic farmer population in the British Isles not from a handful of Spanish sailors that only date back to the later middle ages or the early Tudor period.

As for people who claim the neolithic settlers didnt have much genetic impact in the British Isles, that is true if you take the British Isles as a whole.
But as for certain locations or certain regions, such as south Wales or Western Ireland, those neolithic settlers could easily have had a larger, more isolated genetic impact than is common throughout most of the Isles in general.

There are Atlantic-Mediterranean types found scattered throughout the British Isles in general, including England and Scotland as well, so obviously those darker neolithic types did have some kind of genetic impact in the Isles to varying degrees depending on what region or locality you are looking at.
There is not one single place in the entire British Isles where those types are not found at all.
They're just more common in certain areas.

As for the dark stereotype of south Wales, even Tacitus thought their ancestors had come originally from spain due to their features.
and there was no Spanish armada in Wales.

Many of the neolithic settlers in the western Isles came originally from Spain and SW Europe, so the olive skin of the Black Irish and some Welshmen are most likely due to neolithic settlers and they were already there long before the Armada crashed on the shore.
 
Last edited:
mihaitzateo said:
Darker Irish people are because of Iberian admixture (no idea how that got in Great Britain) but also because most Celts seems to not have been red haired,but dark haired,with darker skin.
Look here an ancient picture (from 990,so more than 1000 yrs old),depicting people from 4 ethnicities/areas bringing gifts (offerings) to King Otto:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/4_Gift_Bringers_of_Otto_III.jpg
As you can see,those from Gallia,are darkest and they have black hair.
There are also darker Norwegians View attachment 6134,so is clear the darker skin is not only from Iberian admixture,since most Norwegians are quite low on Iberian (7% or so,even lower,on average).
People seems to forget that most Celtic populations mixed with Germanic people,this happened in France,Great Britain,Switzerland etc.
Were the mix was not that significant,as happened in Spain,for example,people are still quite dark.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense what so ever. That picture is most likely a depiction of the Gallo-Roman population, not a typical pre-Roman, Celtic speaking Gaul. How can you look at this ONE picture and take it to mean that is how MOST Celts looked like? How can you completely misread something so bad?

The reason the Iberians today dont look like typical Celtic descendants from other parts of Europe is because the Iberians never mixed with the Celts to any meaningful degree.

Besides, when the Romans invaded Britain they talked of how most of the inhabitants were fair skinned and had light hair.......this was at a time long before there was any significant number of Germanic settlers in Britain.

This picture was painted between 950-1000 A.D. ? So, that is after about 7 or 800 years or more, of the descendants of Roman settlers and Gauls mixing and assimilating together in Gallia.

If it had been painted before 50 B.C. then your view might seem more credible, maybe.
 
The entire British isles have no more than 10% Neolithic component on the y-DNA side; even less possibly; 5-10%. These rare individuals could explain part of the "black" Irish phenomenon.
 
The celts poured into Iberia by the way; Albiones, Astures, Gallaeci,celtici, bracari, interamici; these are but some of them. Many place names across Iberia such as Galicia are indicative of Celtic presence and the genetics show that 70-75% of Spanish males belong to R1b; most of it R1b-P312. Again, the Romans invaded and conquered Gaul, but did not significantly alter France's genetic make-up ; they may have brought some few Neolithic lineages, if we set aside those few already present. The Neolithic lineages peak in southeastern France, not due to its proximity with northwestern Italy, but due to local Greek colonization with small sites such as Massilia, for example. The French as well have low Neolithic lineages, albeit slightly higher than those found across the British isles, I would estimate around 15% of French men belong to the Neolithic lineages; possibly slightly more or slightly less.
 
No lower than 10% but possibly a tad lower or equal to 20% of them. Spain and Portugal have a solid 20% Neolithic lineages nationally but not quite 30% and NEVER more than 25%; on a NATIONAL level of course.
 
American Idiot said:
that makes no sense what so ever. That picture is most likely a depiction of the Gallo-Roman population, not a typical pre-Roman, Celtic speaking Gaul. How can you look at this ONE picture and take it to mean that is how MOST Celts looked like? How can you completely misread something so bad?

The reason the Iberians today dont look like typical Celtic descendants from other parts of Europe is because the Iberians never mixed with the Celts to any meaningful degree.

Besides, when the Romans invaded Britain they talked of how most of the inhabitants were fair skinned and had light hair.......this was at a time long before there was any significant number of Germanic settlers in Britain.

This picture was painted between 950-1000 A.D. ? So, that is after about 7 or 800 years or more, of the descendants of Roman settlers and Gauls mixing and assimilating together in Gallia.

If it had been painted before 50 B.C. then your view might seem more credible, maybe.
Click to expand...

You are right about the origin of so-called dark British and Irish, it's due to the prehistoric populations, which were of similar type as the Iberians and the Aquitanians. The Romans already had noticed these darker types in Britain, nothing to do with any "Spanish Armada" from centuries later.

The Romans, by the way, seem to have had contrasting opinions about whether the majority of inhabitants of Britain were like Germans or not. Some try to stereotype them as "fair haired" while others distinguished them from Germans by their darker traits. 19th and 20th century British ethnologists and anthropologists generally dismissed the Roman accounts that try to paint them as "blond" or "red-haired" based on the fact that these stereotypes most certainly did not fit the majority of the modern British or Irish people, as pigmentation surveys of the time easily showed (not even in Scotland, the most red-haired place on the planet, did rufosity made up much more than just 5% of the population, for example, as John Gray's large-scale pigmentation survey of Scotland showed.)

You are wrong, however, about the Celts not having influence on the Iberians. About half of the Iberian Peninsula was inhabited by Celtic tribes since long before recorded times. The Greeks and Romans noticed their presence in the area. Romans also used the word "Celtiberian", apparently for peoples of mixed Iberian and Celtic background. Modern day Iberians in fact are predominantly brown-haired and not "olive-skinned" (Von Luschan scale numbers 15 to 18) but of lighter skin tones (Jablonski and Chaplin's "The evolution of human skin coloration" study found Spanish samples from the region of Leon, an old Celtic territory, lighter in tone than Belgian and southern English samples, and of similar tone as the Welsh and Irish samples.) The "black haired and olive-skinned" stereotype that many people still believe today about Spaniards is based mostly on tourist-oriented images of Gypsies dancing Flamenco and romanticized Hollywood images of the "Latin lover", not on a realistic view of what the native peoples are actually like.
 
I do not think that Celts were uniform,as physical look.And to say that most Celts were red haired,is something that is not supported by any evidences.
For example is well known and not contested that lots of Celts settled in France,however,France does not have a very high frequency of red hair.
So is clear that some Celts were red haired and is clear that those Celts who settled in Ireland and Scotland and Wales were having red hair often.
There is also a difference in languages,Welsh is coming from Britonic,while Irish and Scottish are from Goidelic.All are Insular Celtic languages.
However,those Celts who settled in France should have been speakers of Continental Celtic.
I did not said that all Celts were darker,I said that were also darker skinned Celts,that is what that old image shows.
And those dark skinned Celts being from Gallia should have been speaker of Continental Celtic,which is different branch of Celtic from Insular Celtic,to which Irish,Scottish and Welsh belongs to.
Gallia did not included Great Britain,but you do not think is possible that Insular Celtic speakers have mixed with some Continental Celtic speakers?
 
Drac, what is this indigenous origin of Aquitani nonsense? The Aquitani were in line with the Vascones (Basque people) they would have been high R1b, as the celts were, regardless of the fact that they differed culturally. The dark Irish may have been the few rare Neolithic lineages in Ireland, nothing indicates they were necessarily from Iberia.
 
adamo said:
Drac, what is this indigenous origin of Aquitani nonsense? The Aquitani were in line with the Vascones (Basque people) they would have been high R1b, as the celts were, regardless of the fact that they differed culturally. The dark Irish may have been the few rare Neolithic lineages in Ireland, nothing indicates they were necessarily from Iberia.
Click to expand...

Read what the Romans said about both the culture and physical type of the Aquitanians. They compared them to Iberians, not the people they called "Gauls". Galia was divided between 3 populations, according to the Romans: the Aquitanians, who were much like the Iberians, the Gauls and a people they called the "Belgae".

Even as far back as the Romans, the association of the darker type of Britons with Iberians, properly (not the people the Romans called Celtiberians who also inhabited part of the Iberian Peninsula), was made. 19th and 20th century British ethnologists and anthropologists kept making pretty much the same observations and linking these darker types in the British Isles to people like Iberians, Ligurians and Aquitanians. The topic of "dark Britons" is a very common one in their writings. And by the way, they did not see them as just "a few", but in fact a very important element of the British and Irish populations, the oldest and most "native" type of Britons and Irish. Read the works of Beddoe, Huxley, Thurnam, etc. Even British "Aryanists" like Laurence Waddell saw the majority of the population of the British Isles as not "Nordic" or "Aryan" but in fact heavily influenced by these earlier "Iberian" inhabitants.
 
They compared them to "Iberians" because the Aquitani where more similar in culture and in line with northern Spain's basque people; there is no evidence or reason for them to have been darker than celts across either the rest of France or Spain. These "separate" Belgae you mention where most deffinetly celts too. There is no way that the non-indo European Iberians proper (possibly Phoenician or Ancient Greek colonizers) could have represented the genetic bulk of the Irish. Answer this question: how the bloody he_ _ could the Romans have known that these black Irish you speak of that apparently are found all over Ireland, would have come from Iberia? Even if they did migrate from northern Spain or something towards Ireland/British isles, it's more that R1b-P312 Celtic variety that I would be looking for. I guess these black Irish are represented by the Neolithic lineages, wether the extremely rare in British isles J,E3b,G,T etc. men or the mtdna J,K etc. women that represent in reality a definite minority of lineages in the British isles.
 
Sure; there may be a link, if I recall there is an ancient tribe amongst the Aquitani known as the pictones. You see we found a link between scots and southern French, just not the one you were looking for lol. The basque of northern Spain were no different than the Aquitani of southwestern France. There's certainly an R1b P-312 Celtic link as Aquitania is well within that region of France where P312 peaks; this not only continues into central, western France but also extends well into the Iberian peninsula where it makes up a monstrous amount of R1b among the spaniards and Portuguese. High P312 lineages frequency is also found well into the British iles (mostly downstream L21 of course) but P312 derived lineages make up about in my estimates, 80% of Irish, 65% of Scottish and welsh and 50% of English lineages! for example, if we include R-S28, R-L21, R-P312* with their different histories/origin points etc.
 
This only further supports my idea that the Aquitani WHERE similar to Celt-Iberians; in a typically CELTIC west European way, through their sharing of the R1b-P312 marker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 146099 times.

Back
Top