Gene Study Shows Ties Long Veiled in Europe
By NICHOLAS WADE
The richest archaeological site to be found in years is the human genome. Its deep strata reach back to almost any date of interest. And although the only data it records are who is related to whom, this information can be leveraged into a vivid and otherwise unattainable account of the movement of different groups as people spread out across the globe.
From studying the present day population of the Orkneys, a small archipelago off the northeast coast of Scotland, geneticists from University College, in London, have gained a deep insight into the earliest inhabitants of Europe.
Of the medley of peoples who populated Britain, neither the Anglo-Saxons nor the Romans ever settled the distant Orkneys. The Romans called the islands' inhabitants picti, or painted people. The Celtic-speaking Picts dominated the islands until the arrival of the Vikings about A.D. 800. The islanders then spoke Norn until the 18th century when this ancient form of Norse was replaced by English, brought in with Scottish settlers after the Orkneys were transferred to Scotland in 1468.
Are the present day Orcadians descended from Picts, Vikings or Celts? Dr. James F. Wilson, himself an Orcadian, and Dr. David Goldstein analyzed the Y chromosomes of Orkney men and found they could distinguish a genetic signature typical of present-day Norwegians. The finding, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the Vikings left a genetic mark on the islands, as well as their language and place names.
The geneticists could also distinguish a set of genetic markers associated with men who bore newer surnames, meaning ones associated with the Scottish settlers. This set of markers closely resembled one found in Welsh and Irish men, suggesting that all were descended from the same population. Where did that population come from?
Britain's first inhabitants are thought to have arrived in the Paleolithic era around 10,000 years ago. Later, whether by invasion or cultural diffusion, the Celtic language was established. Then, some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago, farming technology appeared in Britain.
Lacking ancient DNA from a pre- farming British population, Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Wilson chose to compare the common genetic signature of the Welsh, Irish and Scots with the next best thing, the DNA of the Basques who live in northern Spain. The Basques, because they speak an unusual, non-European language and are genetically distinct from other Europeans, have long been assumed to be descended from the continent's first modern human inhabitants.
Dr. Goldstein said he and his colleagues found the same genetic signature in Basque men, suggesting that the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Basques all derive from the same, possibly very homogeneous, population that inhabited Europe in Paleolithic times. This finding implies that the Celtic language must have arrived in Britain largely by cultural diffusion, displacing the original, presumably Basque-type language spoken by the first settlers.
Please click on Source above for rest of article.
My family history (Pict, Celt, Irish/Scotish) has always contained the admission that "there is a viking in the closet somewhere."
2 Posted on 04/10/2001 21:01:01 PDT by pattonIt would be hard to deny Norse DNA for your line--especially if they lived in the north. This offers pretty good proof. Uf dah!
3 Posted on 04/10/2001 21:12:51 PDT by Pharmboy The universe is only 5761 years old (Creation).
World-wide Flood of Noah's year (2500-3000 B.C.)
Three sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, Japheth
Scattered from the City and Tower of Babel by Creator-God they fled to caves and became 'cave' peoples etc.
Europe became peopled by the families of Japheth.
Ah, 'those' women?? They were slaves brought in from India.
.....enough for now.
Later, m
This finding implies that the Celtic language must have arrived in Britain largely by cultural diffusion, displacing the original, presumably Basque-type language spoken by the first settlers.
I was surprised to learn recently that the Irish language is supposedly related to both Latin(which I had known already) but also Arabic. Since the latter is non-Indo-European, it tends to throw off the traditional chart wherein Celtic languages are grouped in the IE family. I hope the linguists are in contact with the geneticists.
5 Posted on 04/10/2001 21:51:49 PDT by Dumb_OxSo the Celts are not blood to the Picts but are to the Basques; and Celtic was not only spread by genetic relatedness but also culturally. And where did those women come from?
No, the article claims that the Scots, Irish and Welsh share a common ancestry with the Basques without providing an explanation for the Celtic or Pictish influence. In my opinion, this "research" is politically motivated with an eye to putting a damper on Celtic pride, especially in Scotland. The bucktoothed English are wetting their pants over the thought of Scottish succession, a movement which has been gaining momentum over the last decade.
In all likelihood, the Celts of Gaul (France) and possibly Celtiberia (northern Spain) invaded Ireland, Britain and Scotland and interbred with the previous inhabitants to various degrees. When a culture comes to totally dominate an area, it almost always leaves a strong genetic imprint on the area. However, this article sidesteps the issue of Celtic genetics and only suggests some sort of "diffusion" of Celtic culture. How convenient.
This article also provides no explanation for the origins of the Picts. My best guess -- and it is a good one -- is that the Picts were genetically very similar to the Welsh and shared a common Basque ancestry, but unlike the Welsh, they were not assimilated by the Celts until the Scots from Northern Ireland (who also had some Pictish/Basque blood, but were much more Celtic) invaded Scotland.
I don't believe that the original Celts were blood to the Basque as you claim in your post. In all probability, it was the Picts who represented the last remnants of an indigenous "Basque" people who had been amalgamated with the Celts to various degrees on other parts of those islands.
I was surprised to learn recently that the Irish language is supposedly related to both Latin(which I had known already) but also Arabic. Since the latter is non-Indo-European, it tends to throw off the traditional chart wherein Celtic languages are grouped in the IE family. I hope the linguists are in contact with the geneticists.
As you probably know, there isn't necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between genetics and language (e.g. my roommate, Ricardo Gonzales who speaks perfect English but no Spanish). Who knows, maybe the Arabs sailed to Ireland and traded incense for lucky charms? Or maybe the Phonecians influenced both the Arabic and Gaelic languages? What about the "ships of Tarshish" described in the Bible? Ancient man got around, and there are many surprises to be uncovered!
Correction to post #6 (yes, I'm anal retentive) --
So the Celts are not blood to the Picts but are to the Basques; and Celtic was not only spread by genetic relatedness but also culturally. And where did those women come from?
No, the article claims that the Scots, Irish and Welsh share a common ancestry with the Basques without providing an explanation for the Celtic and Pictish influences. In my opinion, this "research" is politically motivated with an eye to putting a damper on Celtic pride, especially in Scotland. The bucktoothed English are wetting their pants over the thought of Scottish succession, a movement which has been gaining momentum over the last decade.
In all likelihood, the Celts of Gaul (France) and possibly Celtiberia (northern Spain) invaded Ireland, Britain and Scotland and interbred with the previous inhabitants to various degrees. When a culture comes to totally dominate an area, it almost always leaves a strong genetic imprint. However, this article sidesteps the issue of Celtic genetics and only suggests some sort of "diffusion" of Celtic culture. How convenient.
This article also provides no explanation for the origins of the Picts. My best guess -- and it is a good one -- is that the Picts were genetically very similar to the Welsh and shared a common Basque ancestry, but unlike the Welsh, they were not assimilated by the Celts until the Scots from Northern Ireland (who also had some Pictish/Basque blood, but were much more Celtic) invaded Scotland.
I don't believe that the original Celts were blood to the Basque as you claim in your post. In all probability, it was the Picts who represented the last remnants of an indigenous "Basque" people who had been amalgamated with the Celts to various degrees on other parts of those islands.
This theory has been around for a while. Supposedly the Celtic population of the British Isles is a mixture of two strains, one Celtic which is represented by the tall, redhaired types, even though most Celts weren't, and the other shorter, darker and present before the Celts. A connection between the second type and the Basques has also long been postulated. Another factor genetic research is uncovering is close genetic similarities between most of the Irish and the English. It's also expected that most Lowland Scots will show close connections to Scandinavians. Genetic research will yield more information about the ancestry of peoples, but most of what happened occured so long ago, that it really shouldn't be of much interest politically.
9 Posted on 04/11/2001 00:46:55 PDT by xYes...I see your point. Your explanation can fit the data as well as there being a blood relation between Celts and Basques.
10 Posted on 04/11/2001 11:45:47 PDT by PharmboyWell...that explains John Cleese.
11 Posted on 04/11/2001 11:53:57 PDT by Slowpoke_zzzBagpipes are indiginous to Ireland, Scotland and Spain. That settles the matter for me. (Conveniently I happen to be Irish, Scot and Spanish.)
12 Posted on 04/11/2001 11:55:24 PDT by Wm BachThanks all.
My mother is Scot and English and my dad had Spanish ancestry...that I suspect included Arab. My sisters and I have big dark eyes. But we all married men with blue eyes, like our mother, and all but one of us has children with blue eyes.
We’ve all ended up as good old American hodgepodge.
“Bagpipes are indiginous to Ireland, Scotland and Spain. That settles the matter for me. (Conveniently I happen to be Irish, Scot and Spanish.)”
Interestingly, at least to me, the drone (the constant undernote played with the bagpipe) is also common in Indian (from India, not beaux and arreaux) music. Both use the drone. Hmmm, those early people got around.