Are the French Celtic?

[taira1180]

Well, in Portugal, our genetic indicates that our roots are probably from the neholitic (and not paleolitic) probably before the coming of the Iberians, but the populations adquired the different cultures from the conquerors. But there are diferences in the country: the north has a strong germanic (thanks to the suevi who created a kingdom and vikings who raided and started to live there) and celtic influence. The south have roman (not really romans but citizens) influence and moors from the north of Africa.

[Conal]

looks like the Irish and English are pretty much the same, 80% Celt....

dna haplogroup R1b taken to be the marker of the Brythonic Celts.

Errr... as is, the term "Celt" does not refer to a genetic group or sthg. This is so 1920ies. In regard of methods every Pre- and Early- History historian is going to throw up when reading this.
Nowaday basically the first thing one learns about in the subject is that culture is NOT necessarily bound to genetics and/or specified regions.
So, assuming that the "Celtic" culture apparently derived from the northern Alpine region (Hallstattkultur) I wonder how it came that the Hallstatt people conquered all of Western Europe... populated it anew... were driven out again... stayed only in certain places of far Western Europe... Oh my. :|

I agree that language and culture are not necessarily linked to genetics or location, however if one can establish Celtic languages and cultures existing and developing from areas which have largely unmoved genetic populations I cannot see any reason why you would object to using it as a general link. If the population of Ireland arrived from Spain in 10,000BC but came to speak a Celtic language and use a Celtic culture then R1b can be linked to them as a marker, specifically but not exclusively. It does not mean that (and I know of no one who would claim so) the Spanish who have R1b are Celts ... but there are those who claim that the Irish cannot be Celts as they have ancestors from Spain. Either argument I would suggest is spurious as I adhere to identifying "Celtic" with common language routes and similar cultures and not purely on genetics.

For instance R1b, in conjuction with other evidence, may be helpful in demarking areas in the UK mainland where the Brythonic culture is likely to have held sway as opposed to the areas where Goidelic may have been more prevalent. If this proves to be an emetic to modern Historians then then I suggest that they stop heaving and use all the tools provided and perhaps leave politics at the door.

Now ... Halstatt people ... why would one be "assuming" that Celtic culture developed from this one or that it would require "conquering" all of Europe for such a culture to spread? As far as I am aware it cannot be proved tha the later La Tene culture derived from Swiss alpine regions.

There are those who believe that it may well have originated in southern France on the borders with Spain, so I think the jury may still be out on that one. My readings indicate a cultural spread rather than a migration of people or at least not a vast number of them.

[authun]

There are those who believe that it may well have originated in southern France on the borders with Spain, so I think the jury may still be out on that one. My readings indicate a cultural spread rather than a migration of people or at least not a vast number of them.

Geneticists have never believed that to be true. It has been used as a hypothesis convenient for models, but as far back as 2000, Wilson warned, 'there is no proof of this' and in 2005 Santos Alonso threw serious doubt on both the paleolithic ancestry of the Basques and the insular celtic populations:

"Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions."

Most recently (Jan 2010) Balaresque has found that the genetic marker in question, which is widespread in western europe, entered europe during the neolithic.

From A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages

"Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men. Previous studies suggested a Paleolithic origin, but here we show that the geographical distribution of its microsatellite diversity is best explained by spread from a single source in the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic."

This is supported by the findings of a population density study by Collard (Jan 2010), 'Radiocarbon evidence indicates that migrants introduced farming to Britain' which dates the influx to the neolithic.

Other studies from 2009 include:

Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians. (Malmström et al. 2009)

Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers. (Bramanti et al. 2009)

The Origins of Lactase Persistence in Europe. (Yuval Itan et al. 2009)

The population models by Shennan and Edinborough indicate a sharp drop in population in northern europe at the end of the mesolithic followed by a sharp increase at the onset of the neolithic. However, around the end of the LBK, the populations crashed to very low levels, only marginally above those at the end of the LBK in some places. The low population level existed for around a millenium. A steep population increase is again observed at the start of the TRB. Whether that is due to a recovery in the existing population or due to yet another influx of migrants is not known but, the idea that the Basques represent the last of the paleolithic european populations is no longer viable.

The question of where the Basques do come from however, is extremely interesting. They share both high frequencies of the yDNA marker R1b and the LAC P allele, C=>T 13910. The latter is completely at odds with the surrounding populations, cf 90% Basques, 10% surrounding. However, the Vasconic language of the Basques is completely at odds with other populations who have high R1b yDNA markers or C=>T 13910, who are indo european speakers.

best
authun

[Conal]

Athun

thanks

So I am sure ... are you saying;

That there is no dna ancestry between Basques and Irish via neolithic spread of people other than a normal common neolithic ancemntry common to most Europeans?

or

That there was no spread of "Celtic" "culture" from southern France? I am not muting that there was a spread of people other than enough to spread the culture so I presume no real meaningful dna spread.

Cheers

[authun]

Athun
So I am sure ... are you saying;

That there is no dna ancestry between Basques and Irish via neolithic spread of people other than a normal common neolithic ancemntry common to most Europeans?

or

That there was no spread of "Celtic" "culture" from southern France? I am not muting that there was a spread of people other than enough to spread the culture so I presume no real meaningful dna spread.

Both of the above scenarios are beyond the scope of the studies.

The model which was often used before 2005 was based on the hypothesis most of the western european population were in the Iberian refugium during the LGM and, from there, spread up the atlantic seaboard. Two factors which influenced this were the observation that R1b had its higher frequencies in the west and the assumption that the modern Basque population were a remant of that paleolithic population.

However, many studies started to suggest that the Basque population had not been isolated since the paleolithic and had indeed been influenced by events during the neolithic just as most other european groups. The question then arose, did this neolithic influence of the Basques happen in Iberia, or Southern France or were they somewhere else before and only moved into those areas during the neolithic. It now seems much more likely that the latter is true.

The Basques and the Irish do share a common ancestry but they share it with 110 million other western europeans as well and the original group of R1bs probably migrated from the near east at some time during the neolithic.

This is however somewhat different from the question of the spread of the Celtic culture and languages, which is later. Ireland got its celtic language from europe, but we don't know which part and we don't know when. It's the same with Britain. They don't have to be at the same time, that is, part of the same migration and, in both cases, the acquisition of the language may be either cultural or demic.

One possibility is that the early cereal farmers had lots of R1b lineages. They were looking for land, cleared the forests etc. Their population rose and then crashed. They were not speakers of an indo european language. Their populations eventually rose again, probably around the time of the funnel beaker culture. They may have been augmented by dairy farmers who came from central europe and this process ushered in the IE language. The level of this augmentation is not known. It may have been a series of augmentations as different animals have different histories. Pigs, cattle and sheep all have different histories of domestication so there are several opportunities. Plus, by the chalcolithic, we may have movements of miners, to exploit the mineral resources. This is then followed by tin and the Bronze Age. The routes by which IE Celtic languages could have entered are therefore many.

My own feeling is that those early vasconic speakers were just as influenced by the above as the irish, but because they don't speak an IE language, let alone a celtic language, there is some other factor which we don't know about. As I stated above, the previous assumption was that they were paleolithic in origin but, as this does not seem to be the case, it simply raises the question, where did the Basques come from?

best
authun