tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7033242076363633737..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: First farmers in the MediterraneanDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41376370937981007402011-09-23T01:23:58.239+03:002011-09-23T01:23:58.239+03:00"Instead the rate of dispersal varied, with
N..."Instead the rate of dispersal varied, with<br />Neolithic colonists taking 2,000 years to<br />move from Cyprus to the Aegean, another<br />500 to reach Italy, and then only<br />500–600 years to travel the much<br />greater distance from Italy to the Atlantic"<br /><br />For anyone who's ever played the computer stratgey game "Civilization" the immediate thought from this is "Granaries."<br /><br />Specifically the rate of population growth expanding as agricultural expertise improves thereby decreasing the time between over-population events.<br /><br />.<br />"A primarily Mediterranean coastal phenomenon that took place"<br /><br />Black Sea -> Danube and possibly Mediterranean -> Atlantic coast always needs to be included in that imo.Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51061096469324381392008-08-22T17:17:00.000+03:002008-08-22T17:17:00.000+03:00I have extensive resources listed on my web page a...<I>I have extensive resources listed on my web page about the the MWP4. I mention one, After the Ice, by Steven Mithen. His chapter 17 titled "coastal catastrophe". He estimates that more than 17,000 cubic kilometers of sediment was dumped across the East coast of Scotland... as a record of mesolithic catastrophe.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know how realistic is that data but certainly there's no sedimentation I know of in SW Europe. <BR/><BR/><I>The precise definition, if there is one, of Iberia eludes me. I consider the land north and south of the Pyrenees as Iberia???</I><BR/><BR/>The issue is that the Pyrenees kind of continue along Northern Iberia (Basque mts., Cantabrian range). Romans made no distinction and that seems also to have been the case with Paleolithic peoples. In the Paleolithic there was the Franco-Cantabrian province (north of the mountains but partly in Iberia) and the Mediterranean Iberian province (East/SE Spain), each with a different sequence, even if related at times. Other areas like central Portugal or the few sites in the Plateau are either intermediate or, mostly, link up with Med-Iberia or Iberia proper. <BR/><BR/>The derived peoples (Spaniards and Basques/Gascons resectively) also tend to cluster separately in genetic studies, at least when there is enough resolution. <BR/><BR/>Iberian/non-Iberian is confusing, even meaningless, therefore, unless it actually means southern/eastern Iberians, a relevant quite homogeneous group. <BR/><BR/>Calling Occitania (southern France) "Iberia" is also absurd: it's so obviously outside of the Iberian peninsula!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14445822962862101022008-08-22T16:58:00.000+03:002008-08-22T16:58:00.000+03:00IIRC the Galicians are high in Y-DNA haplogroup J ...<I>IIRC the Galicians are high in Y-DNA haplogroup J as well as central Scotland.</I><BR/><BR/>Capelli et al. 2003 (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00373-7) does not mention any large apportion of Y-DNA J among any British population. The highest samples are only at 5-7% (the Highlands sample indeed but also many samples from England). <BR/><BR/>NW Spaniards (incl. Galicians) appear high in Y-DNA J maybe but unlike Highland Scots (that are exclusively J2) they have both J clades in similar apportions. Anyhow, from a historical perspective, maybe Portugal would be a more likely source of Mediterranean erratics along Atlantic Europe. After all Galicia was only colonized late in the Neolithic, appearing more like a reciever area than an exporter of DNA.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31184990145148539112008-08-22T13:43:00.000+03:002008-08-22T13:43:00.000+03:00I noted with great interest the 5 dys loci Iceland...I noted with great interest the 5 dys loci Iceland signature. It resembles me, especially if you evolve it to scotland as Maju does. If I can believe Mowat, the times at which Walrus were in Iceland were prehistoric??? According to him they were chased from the Bay of Biscay north and west to Labrador!!<BR/><BR/>I do not think you can use the word irish or scottish at that time. All you had was Alban, both in Ireland and Scotland!! I'm also pretty sure they didn't differentiate among themselves??? I believe the type of boat they both used, walrus hide, has an old replica/antique in a Dublin museum?? Once the Vikings had the Long boats, about 700 to 800 AD, they controlled the northern seas. When do you think the Catholic Church started in Ireland. How many centuries would they have had to fish Iceland? If Ken Nordtvedts time frames is correct, than I was born about 1500 BC +/- 500 years. Then the fishing didn't start until much later and you are right??? My second closest match is from Ireland!!!<BR/><BR/>As to your heritage. I would guess, because of the provenance, that you are NWIMH, e.g., gael in my definition. Good luck!!McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71939601999039400162008-08-22T13:22:00.000+03:002008-08-22T13:22:00.000+03:00I hope you got the full 37 dys loci values for the...I hope you got the full 37 dys loci values for the two sets?? I know a little about bob, he now lives in San Antonion, Texas I believe. His family is partially from the Canary Islands and partially from Iberia (whatever that appears to mean?). His non-iberian data set is made up of R1b who state that their earliest known ancestor did not originate in Iberia. So it is a mix of s116+, M269, s21 etc. He apparently sorted it to keep out father/son pairs. To him, Iberia is as he defines it and the earliest ancestor in that data set is from that region. Thats about all I know of the data sets. What is important is the 13's of all the non-iberian's have a shorter TMRCA than the Iberians, i.e., they are younger. So iberian heritage predates other R1b sub-clades???<BR/><BR/>I have extensive resources listed on my web page about the the MWP4. I mention one, After the Ice, by Steven Mithen. His chapter 17 titled "coastal catastrophe". He estimates that more than 17,000 cubic kilometers of sediment was dumped across the East coast of Scotland... as a record of mesolithic catastrophe.<BR/><BR/>The precise definition, if there is one, of Iberia eludes me. I consider the land north and south of the Pyrenees as Iberia???McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14279355435366985402008-08-22T01:01:00.000+03:002008-08-22T01:01:00.000+03:00You claim the Picts are from Galicia.IIRC the Gali...You claim the Picts are from Galicia.<BR/><BR/>IIRC the Galicians are high in Y-DNA haplogroup J as well as central Scotland.pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77828135622139009192008-08-22T00:56:00.000+03:002008-08-22T00:56:00.000+03:00McG:Per your analysis, and my own Y-DNA results, I...McG:<BR/>Per your analysis, and my own Y-DNA results, I am:<BR/><BR/>15,16,17,17 at the 464x series - Iberian modal - I have these values.<BR/><BR/>The Scottis are 10 at 391 and 11 at 385a - I have these values.<BR/><BR/>The Laiginn (Campbells) have their own special haplotype with a:15 at 385b,19/20 at 458,and a 16 @ 464c - I have NONE of these values, but am a GD=0 for the first 12-markers from Sir Islay Campbell??<BR/><BR/>That leaves the NW Irish Modal, 25 @ 390, a 14 @ 392, 16's at 464 b and c - I have the first 3 values, but not the last one.<BR/><BR/>Based on your analysis, which of the Iberian, Erainn, Scotti, Laiginn, Pict should I be closest to?pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84974239171209556382008-08-22T00:29:00.000+03:002008-08-22T00:29:00.000+03:00Also check out Irish Monk Dicuil:http://en.wikiped...Also check out Irish Monk Dicuil:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicuilpconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32611805798090605122008-08-22T00:20:00.000+03:002008-08-22T00:20:00.000+03:00In regard to Irish in the Northern Isles and espec...In regard to Irish in the Northern Isles and especially Iceland:<BR/><BR/>It has been estimated that 60% of Icelander's mtDNA traces back to Ireland, and so the population is mainly of Irish/Norwegian descent. I have a 1 Y-DNA matches in Iceland, with a genetic different (GD) of 0, and 2 with a GD=1, so on the male side too Irish freemen or slaves (Thralls) may have made the trip. Of course since the Irish had settlements in Iceland BEFORE the Vikings discovered it - mostly of Monks - they may have directly left descendants there. The Vikings called the Irish Vestmenn - meaning Men from the West - and there are a few place names that include this name. They called Irish monks Papar - meaning followers of the Pope - and there are a few placenames with this too.<BR/><BR/>Vestmenn:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestmannaeyjar<BR/><BR/>Papar:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparpconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88203327099940156982008-08-22T00:05:00.000+03:002008-08-22T00:05:00.000+03:00I made it very clear how I looked at Mowat and his...I made it very clear how I looked at Mowat and his book. That said I have much less faith in history as written in the early centuries by the Romans and later by the monks in Ireland. I wouldn't bet that Mowat misrepresented what the Irish Monks did? I know they travelled to Iona. Early history, names mean very little to me.<BR/><BR/>I don't know your sources nor the specifics of how you think the tribes invaded Ireland and subsequently Scotland. I am aware of four tribes: Picts, the earliest "invaders" after the Albans. They appeared to have settled the East Coasts of Scotland and Ireland. The Laiginn and Erainn (atrebates to the Romans) were driven out of the low countries, first into England and then into Ireland, The Erainn in the NorthEast and the Laiginn across the south. I think the Gaels came last and first displaced the laiginn to Argyll and later the Erainn over the period of about 0 AD to 500 AD. I believe the Gaels are characterized by the IMH, descendants of the Ui'Neill. Now this may not correspond with your version of history, but thats what I have ascertained. I am certainly willing to reconsider, but my analysis of the scottish clans supports this contention in part, i.e. The Scottis are 10 at 391 and 11 at 385a, the Picts are 11, 11, you can see this split all the way back to Iberia. The Laiginn (Campbells) have their own special haplotype with a:15 at 385b,19/20 at 458,and a 16 @ 464c. That leaves the NW Irish Modal, found at a low frequency in the highland clans, but predominant in Ireland. A 25 @ 390, a 14 @ 392, 16's at 464 b and c.<BR/><BR/>When you look at the highlands you see sparceness, because of the attempt at ethnic cleansing, which began with the Vikings on down. Given you find 7% in the Highland Wilderness, to my knowledge they never developed any large towns, etc., except as I have admitted where they cleaned the Islands.<BR/><BR/>I am not expert in I so I cannot comment on your comment about the genetic make up of central spain.<BR/><BR/>Please be advised that most of what I say is based on DNA analysis of the Highland clans which I have been doing for over three years. This is what the data tells me. Using Bob Tarins Iberian and non-iberian data sets in conjunction with the clan data leads me to the conclusions I have stated. I pointedly have not relied on history, the meager archaeology - except the aftermath of the great flood, and any naming. Look at the Clan Gregor FtDNA web site and scan the Ian Cam. You'll find 5 or 6 Stirlings there!!! They are MacGregors who adopted the name at the time of proscription in the early 1600's!!! DNA doesn't lie!!!McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9580964122765150982008-08-21T23:03:00.000+03:002008-08-21T23:03:00.000+03:00The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the sa...<I>The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the same. The Iberian has a 16 at 464c, a 19 at 576 and they differ by one at CDYa.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok. That is not in your data anyhow. And in any case tells us of small differences only. <BR/><BR/>Both seem to belong to the lower resolution clade that I call "modal R1b" (14-24-11-13-13 of Alonso or the HT1 of proofer joan's site: http://www.geocities.com/prooferjoan/R1b.htm).<BR/><BR/>Anyhow I wonder what "Iberian" means (what populations specifically: Iberia is large and diverse and from the Paleolithic viewpoint was divided in at least two clearly different regions). "Non-Iberian" is even more ambiguous. <BR/><BR/><I>I don't know who went where first? I surmise that as the Ice age diminished, the fishing peoples inhabited most of the coastal lands of Spain, France, the British Isles. These peoples probably originated in Iberia.</I><BR/><BR/>I do not have it clear that your Doggerbank flood had any major consequences. You have shown so far no evidence (like silting maybe) of it affecting any specific area. Epipaleolithic peoples were often seafood gatherers and I have no reference on any discontinuity of this behaviour caused by your alleged flood. But it may be coincident in time with a N-S cultural flow, so maybe it did cause a wave of refugees from Northern/Middle Europe. <BR/><BR/>In any case, archaeologically speaking, southern Iberia is mostly a reciever region, but that does not apply to the Franco-Cantabrian province that includes parts of Iberia and "France" (Occitania actually). Some time ago it became fashionable to talk about "Iberian refugium", what showed that the people talking of it had little or no knowledge of European Prehistory. Luckily, soon the Franco-Cantabrian concept became better known and replaced it. <BR/><BR/>For that reason talking of Iberian and non-Iberian clades happens to be so confusing. Because the core area of a good deal of European Prehistory was partly in Iberia and partly outside it. <BR/><BR/>As said before I understand that this "HT1" clade is extremely old and its flow into Iberia may even date from Gravettian (or maybe just Magdalenian) times.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63173787114733287552008-08-21T22:37:00.000+03:002008-08-21T22:37:00.000+03:00McG said:The book is "Farfarers" by Farley Mowat, ...McG said:<BR/><I>The book is "Farfarers" by Farley Mowat, a Canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original Scots and their Iberian roots.</I><BR/><BR/>I read that book a few years ago, and he certainly has some interesting things to say about the importance of marine mammals and fishing in early socities on the Atlantic fringe. <BR/>However, that being said, he also weaves a story which is false in many places, and misappropiates the historic seafaring of Irish monks and makes these voyages to be that of people from the North of Scotland or the Northern Isles - when there is documented evidence about this. So that part is very misleading and counter factual.<BR/><BR/>Also, McG, you have the habit of using the same phrase to mean different things in your posts. We know the origin of the original Scots, they were Gaels and more specifically Scotti, from Ireland and spoke Q-Celtic, no mystery there. If you mean the original inhabitants of today's Scotland, then the earliest historic inhabitants are Albans - as you previously stated.<BR/><BR/>What's interesting is that today's Scottish population are the product of 5 historic peoples, Albans (aka Caledonians), Picts, Gaels, Angles and Vikings. Most of these have carved out coastal kingdoms. The highest percentage of Y-DNA haplotype J in all the British Isles - at 7% IIRC - is actually in the mountains of Central Scotland - could this be the relic of the Albans?!<BR/><BR/>This is similar to the fact that central Spain has 33% of Y-DNA haplogroup I - which seems to be the oldest male lineage in Iberia.pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72113830564362905792008-08-21T22:27:00.000+03:002008-08-21T22:27:00.000+03:00The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the sa...The Iberian and non-iberian are not exactly the same. The Iberian has a 16 at 464c, a 19 at 576 and they differ by one at CDYa. I estimate the Iberian TMRCA is about 2K year older than the non-iberian.<BR/><BR/>I don't know who went where first? I surmise that as the Ice age diminished, the fishing peoples inhabited most of the coastal lands of Spain, France, the British Isles. These peoples probably originated in Iberia. The Flood redistributed people away from the coast into the higher elevations, northern scotland and parts of Germany, switzerland, France and northern Italy. The Balkans also could have been the source of some of these folks, certainly the 13 at 393, and 23 at 390 which are a separate sub-clade of R1b. s116+ seems to be Iberian in origin and populated a large part of the British Isles. Small numbers dispersed in other directions?? After 6K BC, the climate improved, migrations increased and populations grew all over western europe. So, I think Iberia is the home of s116 and the WAMH, the Balkans are the home of some of the other, somewhat more eastern sub-clades of R1b??? Because of the timing a doggerland source cannot be denied for parts of Germany and the Alps.<BR/><BR/>I tried the address you gave me for the Alonso paper and had no luck? Is it correct?McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55417655061621201192008-08-21T21:39:00.000+03:002008-08-21T21:39:00.000+03:00What do you think the Celtic haplotype is??I don't...<I>What do you think the Celtic haplotype is??</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think we can talk of such ethnically defined clade. Celtic genesis and evolution is complex and long, surely incorporating different subsets of people into their nation. <BR/><BR/>First there is an obscure genesis out of Western Indo-Europeans and (specially) Indo-Europeanized natives at the western margins of IE range at that time (the Rhin area mainly). This process takes maybe some 1100 years. Then they experience three succesive expansion waves along another whole milennium, the two first ones surely also with other IE ethnicities. These expansions also mean (in some cases very clearly) the incorporation of further native masses, maybe as serfs, maybe as allies. It's hard to pinpoint a single clade that could be associated with them, specially in Britain and Ireland, where the main element of original colonization surely also arrived from the same area of Middle Europe. <BR/><BR/>They were surely vectors of many clades from Middle Europe into Iberia, France and the islands but what is Celtic and what is pre-Celtic is not something easy to detect. <BR/><BR/><I>I'll tell you mine: It is basically the non-iberian modal haplotype of the Tarin data set.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>It's identical to the Iberian one and it is the most widespread clade in all resources I could access. It seems to be much older than Celts. For me it's actually the root clade (or, if the root is in Anatolia, then the European root clade anyhow).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26378041262992784642008-08-21T19:52:00.000+03:002008-08-21T19:52:00.000+03:00I think we need to firm up a definition from a gen...I think we need to firm up a definition from a genetic point of view: What do you think the Celtic haplotype is??<BR/><BR/>I'll tell you mine: It is basically the non-iberian modal haplotype of the Tarin data set.<BR/><BR/>In this context, I am not celtic, but pre-celtic. It may also simply be an R1b with a 13 at 393?McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30950961307128999672008-08-21T17:46:00.000+03:002008-08-21T17:46:00.000+03:00It is too bad your Alonso (please provide the full...<I>It is too bad your Alonso (please provide the full reference)...</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, I thought it is a well known study: <BR/>- doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201482<BR/>- http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html<BR/><BR/><I>I had thought the Aquitaine were Gaels also</I><BR/><BR/>Aquitanians (Lat. Aquitani) were Basque speakers, it's uncontested. More obscure is the matter with other tribes like Cantabrians. <BR/><BR/>North of the Aquitanians, at Poitou, lived the Pictones, who were Celts indeed. Maybe you mean them. The toponym "Aquitaine" has fluctuated through the ages and that may have confused you. The modern French region of Aquitaine approaches the old one, though the historical region of Gascony is a much more exact match. In the Middle Ages it was known as Vasconia (from which: Gascogne) and Aquitaine instead was used for a Romance realm north of it, including Poitou, Limousin, Tolouse and other areas. <BR/><BR/><I>This point has not been discussed much by the acadamicians(impact of fising) that I am aware of. I can recommend an amateurs book, which I found very readable and somewhat credible for his hypotheses. The book is "Farfarers" by Farley mowat, a canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original scots and their Iberian roots. </I><BR/><BR/>I'll see if I can find that or something of the like, thanks.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86190898423310346612008-08-21T17:09:00.000+03:002008-08-21T17:09:00.000+03:00Yes, I believe my clade is from Scotland but I am ...Yes, I believe my clade is from Scotland but I am not a "genetic" MacGregor. At some point, long ago, my ancestor was adopted into the clan. I believe I am of Alban descent, the original name of Scotland was Alba. They were the first settlers of the highlands just after the Ice left??<BR/><BR/>It is too bad your Alonso (please provide the full reference) did not use 385a also since it plays a major role in the tribes. I have done several other studies and have convinced myself that 10, 11 at 391/385a is Erainn(Scotti) and 11, 11 is Pict. I have traced these haplotypes all the way back to the Iberian data set of R.L.Tarin, Jr (go to world families network where his databases are). Unlike 393 12/13 which antedate each other. I separated the data sets along lines of 10/11 and 11/11 and found no separation. Note the iberian and non-iberian data sets have 391 at about 70% 11, 30% 10 for both sets of data. So the Patriarchs of the Erainn and Pict go way back in time.<BR/><BR/>I had thought the Aquitaine were Gaels also, but the Pict description works also. They are both offshoots from the original Pyrenees inhabitants. One group apparently went North (Picts) and one south Gaels (Galicians).<BR/><BR/>This point has not been discussed much by the acadamicians(impact of fising) that I am aware of. I can recommend an amateurs book, which I found very readable and somewhat credible for his hypotheses. The book is "Farfarers" by Farley mowat, a canadian. He has many interesting premises about the original scots and their Iberian roots.McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2455285571044981482008-08-21T05:48:00.000+03:002008-08-21T05:48:00.000+03:00@ McG:I have already replied to you by mail. Just ...@ McG:<BR/><BR/>I have already replied to you by mail. Just to add that I think your clade is from Scotland (has no apparent correlation with the "12" clades from Anatolia) but from a different lineage from the one you posted as "McGregor". Both are Scottish in any case but seem to have quite different patterns:<BR/><BR/>The first one is apparently derived from the most common in Middle Europe (the Low Countries, Austria), what may mean Epialeolithic colonization. The latter instead is the most common in Scotland, also found in the North Sea and the Basque Country in significative ammounts. <BR/><BR/>What brings me to a point that both have agreed upon: that the Picts were fishermen arrivals from outside (someone mentioned Aquitaine, what means "Basques"). This is a most interesting point that I was totally ignorant about, so... can you point me to some resource where I can learn more? <BR/><BR/>I had already read something about Megalithism being spread by cod fishermen (at least as hypothesis) but I was ignorant about Picts being fishermen original from Aquitaine.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52945108570760582632008-08-21T00:56:00.000+03:002008-08-21T00:56:00.000+03:00Here are some famous "Scottish" Normans:Robert I, ...Here are some famous "Scottish" Normans:<BR/><BR/>Robert I, King of Scotland (aka De Bruce)<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I_of_Scotland<BR/><BR/>William St Claire (aka De Clare, Sinclair) of Roslyn<BR/>http://news.scotsman.com/rosslynchapel/From-St-Clair-to-Sinclair.2774883.jp<BR/><BR/>Also check out the Border Reivers site, for more DNA samples from this area:<BR/>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gallgaedhil/Top_Haplotypes.htmpconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58438084021306362792008-08-21T00:06:00.000+03:002008-08-21T00:06:00.000+03:00Having the name McGregor, I have a different slant...Having the name McGregor, I have a different slant on Scottish History than most.<BR/><BR/>1. The Picts didn't conquer the Albans, they occupied northeastern scotland and part of the center. When the Romans came they fought together. The Romans claimed they won mons Grampius and then they proceeded to build two walls???<BR/><BR/>2. The scottis came in from the southwest, argyll, and fought with and against the Picts and Albans against the Vikings. It was the marriage of McAlpin with the Pictish Queen that united the the three constituents - not warfare.<BR/><BR/>3. The Vikings never did establish a major village in Scotland to my knowledge. Yes, unfortunately they cleared the Islands of the Albans, but later ceded the Islands back to Scotland.<BR/><BR/>4. The Angles never made it into the highlands. They were repelled by the Picts several times. They may have occupied some of the lowland eastern border towns???<BR/><BR/>5. The Normans didn't conquer Scotland - only England, the best I know. During the Scottish independence period, alliances were formed with the French/Normans to spite the English.<BR/><BR/>6. The Scottish border is a hodgepodge so to speak, from a genetic point of view. The highlands were completely independent, or so, until Culloden!! By the way, my ancestor had left by then, 1684 to be precise, well before Culloden and the the clearances; whatever.<BR/><BR/>Alas, in the end you are right!! They borrowed the stone of scone and started raising sheep and drove the crofters all over the world. The name I carry was proscribed by the English for almost 200 years!!!<BR/><BR/>I think conquered is too strong a word? The pride still runs deep!! S' Rioghal Mo Dhream!!McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22241897481328765072008-08-20T23:08:00.000+03:002008-08-20T23:08:00.000+03:00Scotland was never conqueredWhat do you mean by th...<I>Scotland was never conquered</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean by that?<BR/><BR/>The area known today as Scotland was conquered all or in part many times. By Picts - who were probably from the Aquitaine region of France - and established a Northern and Southern Pictish kingdoms.<BR/><BR/>By the Irish tribe of Scotti - who gave the area its name and language.<BR/><BR/>By the Norwegian Vikings, who took the Northern and Western Isles.<BR/><BR/>By the Angles, who took the South East of the area.<BR/><BR/>By the Normans, who took the lowlands.<BR/><BR/>Where to begin...pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6655492177010394052008-08-20T21:55:00.000+03:002008-08-20T21:55:00.000+03:00Hopefully you will receive a copy of the table?Sco...Hopefully you will receive a copy of the table?<BR/><BR/>Scotland was never conquered. First, I believe there were the Albans! They arrived c. 12-15k BP. Basically, they were coastal fisherman who had travelled north. At some, point the Picts first arrived, maybe as early as 7K BP?? They spoke a different language than the Albans by that time but they understood each other, unlike the later Scottis. I believe the Alban language was probably very close to Basque? I believe the Albans were pre-celtic? As far as I can tell they welcomed the Picts (early celts).<BR/><BR/>I have not based any of my work on the "Archaeological Record", because, before carbon dating, there was no "science" to it??? All my dating and inferences are based on TMRCA analysis and the corresponding modal haplotypes. My oldest estimate, using this data, is about 14K BP for the s116+ 393 = 12 (only nine entries - so very suspect). I converge the s21+ and Iberian 12's to about 12K BP. The end of the last Ice Age. I have no prior data, and whatever there may be will probably be very sparce? So, essentially, my history begins at that time, probably on the Iberian Peninsula or in the Pyrenees? I find the Iberian 13 TMRCA as about 10,500 BP. This is the oldest 13 I have identified and it comes from Iberia! Most of my non-iberian 13's (s116,s21,Tarin) have a TMRCA near 8K BP, which is near the occurrence of the "doggerland" flooding. The four Irish tribes: Gael, Erainn, Pict (cruithne) and Laiginn also exist in the haplotypes of scotland and all appear to originate from Iberia. The Albans also appear to be from there also??<BR/><BR/>The incidence of the Germanic tribes in Scotland and Ireland is minimal, based on haplotype analysis. The predominant genetic presence in Ireland and Scotland after R1b is probably R1a (Viking), followed by small amounts of Anglo-Saxon and Roman.<BR/><BR/>I can imagine what the Albans may have looked like, small, wiry, like the Archer found in England. Probably oval-faced, not square like the scotti/dutch. All my female ancestors are mostly of scottish lowland descent and I most resemble them.(Hunter, Lindsay,Armstrong, etc.)<BR/><BR/>So, I have really nothing to contribute when it comes to cultures before Iberia, I don't have the genetic data. I only trust science; not names, not history nor the "soft" sciences that have no real scientific data to support their position.<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to be smug or arrogant about this, its just that I have been "burned", when I used "data" from other sources. For me, the genetic data doesn't lie (only the interpreter sometimes).McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16546496764634263252008-08-20T18:35:00.000+03:002008-08-20T18:35:00.000+03:00Oops, sorry. The email adress actually is lialdami...Oops, sorry. The email adress actually is lialdamiz AT gmail.com - obviously. ^^Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53902600055889871972008-08-20T18:28:00.000+03:002008-08-20T18:28:00.000+03:00I can change the file format. Please tell me what ...<I>I can change the file format. Please tell me what you can read and I can email you.</I><BR/><BR/>XLS is Excel, right? Or is that XLM? While my Excel crashed long ago, I can still open tables via Word. Would it be downloadable (media file), I could open it directly - but it seems not to be the case, sorry. <BR/><BR/>You can send that stuff to lialdamiz AT google.com, for instance. I should be able to read it hopefully. <BR/><BR/><I>First, what are the dys loci you are referring to? I think I know what they are, but I want to be sure.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm using Alonso-2005 as main reference, so the DYS sequence is 19, 390, 391, 392, 393.<BR/><BR/><I>I am a 393 =12 and a 390 =23 with a 13 at 388.</I><BR/><BR/>A rare clade, right?<BR/><BR/><I>I believe I have a very old haplotype.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not questioning that DYS393=12 might be older than DYS393=13 but I would rather think that haploype 14-24-11-13-13 is the main node connceting Anatolian DYS393=12 with Western DYS393=13 clades an that this transition would seem the most important one in the West Eurasian R1b (or R1b1b2) structure. There are some other "12-13" possible connections but they affect much smaller (rarer) clades and anyhow also appear to be at the Anatolian/European divide. <BR/><BR/><I>Scotland was never conquered...</I><BR/><BR/>It was conquered by the Celts certainly. No matter the Picts were Celtic or not (an unsolved issue AFAIK) because the Scotts were original from Ireland in any case. The Celts are ultimately original from what is now Germany and nearby areas, so there was at least one conquest, maybe more. Also, we do not know for sure if Megalithism may have brought with it some gene flows anyhow. <BR/><BR/>But yes, I'd agree that Scotland looks demographicaly quite "virginal" in any case. <BR/><BR/><I>I think the Epipaleolithic migrations to the North were following the Walrus as the Bay of Biscay was "fished" out and the Walrus traveled North as the Atlantic warmed.<BR/><BR/>Much of what I say is speculative, but it is based on climatic and invasion forces into the Spain/Germany/French regions.</I><BR/><BR/>You have to consider the archaeological record first and foremost. And AFAIK the evidence seems to suggest that Northern Europe, including the islands, was colonized primarily from continental middle Europe (Northern France, Belgium, Germany) in the Epipaleolithic. <BR/><BR/>The overall cultural (and possibly demic) flow in Western/Northern Europe is:<BR/><BR/>1. Badegoulian (precursor of Magdalenian): while Franco-Cantabrian in its main developement, it appears to have been fed by Aurignacian pervivences in Germany. <BR/><BR/>2. Magdalenian: appears to re-colonize Central Europe after the LGM from the Franco-Cantabrian region. Also to southern Iberia at later date.<BR/><BR/>3. Early Epipaleolithic: Cultural diversification of Magdalenian. Northern Europe is gradually colonized (most likely from Middle Europe). <BR/><BR/>4. Late Epipaleolithic: North-South cultural flow that in some cases may be colonization. <BR/><BR/>5. Neolithic: arrivals via three routes: (a) Danubian Neolithic into Middle Europe, (b) Cardium Pottery into SE France and Eastern Spain and (c) Andalusian Neolithic in southern Spain and influencing southern Portugal (possibly of North African origin). The Atlantic regions mostly evolve separately with diverse influences.<BR/><BR/>6. Megalithism (Dolmenism primarily): oldest in Portugal. Spreads northwards through the Atlantic and also into the Upper Danub, SE France and Southern Spain. Later into West and Central Mediterranean with the likely exception of Malta that seems older. Demic flow likely low but hard to say.<BR/><BR/>7. First major Indo-European conquest: affecting Central Europe and Scandinavia (Corded Ware). Went through a long period of "adaptation" at certain localities (Elbe, Vistula). Coincidentally, expansion of Artenac culture (proto-Aquitanians?) through western France/Belgium.<BR/><BR/>8. Bell Beaker: oldest in Bohemia. No meaningful demic flow with exceptions (Rhin area, of late date). Pseudo-culture: it inserts itself in local contexts that show clear continuity and seems to incorporate local peoples.<BR/><BR/>9. Urnfields: Celtic (and other IE?) migrations into some specific Western areas (from the Rhin basin mostly).<BR/><BR/>10. Hallstatt. Most importantly Celtic (and other IE?) conquest of central and western Iberia. Soon after cut off from mainland Europe by Iberian expansion.<BR/><BR/>11. La Tène. Main Celtic expansion: most of France, Britain, Ireland and even areas in the Balcans and Italy. <BR/><BR/>12. Main Germanic expansion and Roman Empire.<BR/><BR/>Processes number 3 (original Epipaleolithic colonization), 5 (neolithic erratics), 6 (Megalithism), 8 (not meaningful demically: Bell Beaker), 11 (Celts) and 12 (Rome) affected the islands.<BR/><BR/>Additionally it may be worth mentioning that in the late Bronze Age there were still strong economic/cultural bonds between Western Iberia and Britain/Ireland, also affecting Atlantic France. <BR/><BR/>It's also worth mentioning that Azilians still used Magdalenian derived harpoons, unlike Northern cultures (AFAIK), so the walrus hypothesis appears unlikely. But who knows? For me it's as simple as: there were new open niches as ice melted, so people moved in (no matter the specific resources).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36150392581766020682008-08-20T16:36:00.000+03:002008-08-20T16:36:00.000+03:00I can change the file format. Please tell me what...I can change the file format. Please tell me what you can read and I can email you.<BR/><BR/>First, what are the dys loci you are referring to? I think I know what they are, but I want to be sure.<BR/><BR/>I am a 393 =12 and a 390 =23 with a 13 at 388. I believe I have a very old haplotype. This is partly why I disagree with a 4K age of s116+, since I also am s116+. I do not know for sure when my ancestors arrived in Scotland, but I think it was very early, maybe 10K to 15K BP?? My two closest matches are both from the British Isles (less than 5 different out of 67.<BR/><BR/>I distinguish between England, Scotland and Ireland. The Irish write of invasians by at least 4 tribes at different times. They end with the Milesian (Gaels?) about 0 AD +/- 300 years. Scotland was never conquered: not by the Romans (look at the walls they built), Vikings got the Islands but nothing else and the Danes/Anglo-Saxons were severely defeated. When I analyze a highland clan like the MacGregors and look only at R1b (about 80%+of all entries), I find: Erainn (roman Atrebates), Pict (cruithne), northwest irish modal (gaels) and Laiginn (campbells predominantly), and a few albans such as myself. The others (non R1b) are descendants of the Romans, Vikings and a few later immigrants.<BR/><BR/>The history of the migrations beginning about 15K BP is conjectural, but I believe one has to look for Forces to cause displacements? I look at Climate, Food and War in that order. I believe the first was Climate and resulted in a South/North displacement, this was concomitant with the search for more abundant food. Doggerland caused a North/South displacement as you say, mostly into central europe, I believe? The Romans (war) first conquered what is now Spain and displaced the Gaels? They then attacked Gaul and drove out the Laiginn and Erainn into England and then Ireland. The Picts occupied the West Coast of what is now France (Brittany) and made several migrations, once up the Irish Sea and once to the East Coast of Scotland, where they replicated their megaliths.<BR/><BR/>I think the Epipaleolithic migrations to the North were following the Walrus as the Bay of Biscay was "fished" out and the Walrus traveled North as the Atlantic warmed.<BR/><BR/>Much of what I say is speculative, but it is based on climatic and invasion forces into the Spain/Germany/French regions.McGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03459589185170647441noreply@blogger.com