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

[MOESAN]

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]

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 2]

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]

@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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Tomenable]

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 [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]

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]

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]

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.

(...)

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]

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]

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]

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 [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]

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]

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]

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]

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.