Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1159110912

From: "R. & G. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Celts descended from Spanish fishermen, study finds
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:15:12 -0400
References: <a06110407c1387adc2f1f@[]><004d01c6dddc$4321a5a0$640fa8c0@Villandra2><><007401c6dde1$7b2b6760$640fa8c0@Villandra2><003901c6df1b$61e69410$6401a8c0@Richard><003001c6dfe3$5671b2e0$640fa8c0@Villandra2>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Celts descended from Spanish fishermen, study finds

> The Classical authors were describing "Celts" north of Italy and Greece,
> not
> in Western France!
> Where are you getting I came up with the stuff about the dark skinned
> Celts!
> My point exactly is that the "Celts" were whoever lived in Celtic regions
> when the actual "Celts" ruled them.
> 19th and 20th century ideas about Celts are based on the notion that the
> "Celts" are the "indiginous" (too tired to spell or something) people of
> western France and Spain and the British Isles!
> Did you miss my three posts or so about how a small group of Scythian an
> dCimmerian aristocrats galloped across Europe in horsedrawn chariots
> between
> 800 and 600 BC, took control of the peoples there through palace
> revolutions, and formed the Celtic confederacy? The culture of the
> people
> of central Europe was old and already sophisticated. It blended with
> Scythian culture to develop into what we know as "Celtic".
> I'll say this for the twelth time. The people of Western France and
> Spain
> and the British Isles are called "Celtic" because of the recent historical
> association of Celts with that area. That does not say that is the only
> place where there were ever Celts! It sure doesn't say that the people
> of
> that area correspond to "the Celts"!
> Yours,
> Dora Smith
> Austin, TX

Well, Dora, I think you are treating poorly-grounded speculations as if they
were established fact. There is no evidence that the "true Celts" were a
small ruling elite who forced their language and culture on a much much
larger population of indigenous people.

Does it seem likely that an ancient ruling elite would allow the lowly
"natives" to be as successful at producing sons as the so-called
"indigenous" R1b1cs have been in Western Europe?

It is silly to think that Indo-Iranian peoples like the Scythians and
Cimmerians metamorphosed into "Celts" and imposed their rule over more
"lowly natives," thereby forming a "Celtic confederacy." In the first place,
there never was a Celtic confederacy. In the second, as I already pointed
out, there is no evidence that the Scythians and Cimmerians traded their
Indo-Iranian speech for a Celtic language.

While it is true that classical authors were describing Celts north of
Greece, it is also true that the Romans described British and Gallic Celts
IN THE SAME WAY, i.e., as fair-skinned and fair-haired, with light-colored
eyes. Most of the people who live in the so-called Celtic lands today still
fit that description. By the way, I mentioned Roman descriptions of British
Celts in the post to which you referred, but you conveniently overlooked

R1b in Western Europe is relatively unifrom in its haplotypes and
notoriously difficult to parse into geographically significant subclusters.
Haplotype diversity increases as one travels east across Europe, reaching a
maximum, as Alan Foster once pointed out, in the Ural-Volga region. Those
facts are indicative - it seems to my inexpert mind - of the relative youth
of R1b in Western Europe and not of great age and "indigenous" status there.

It seems likely to me, and to a growing number of other people, that the
indigenous natives of Western Europe belonged to y-haplogroups other than
R1b, whose bearers moved in from the East sometime in the Neolithic Period
or Bronze Age and largely replaced them. Those actual indigenous
y-haplogroups may be largely extinct now in Europe or they may still exist
as vestigial, minority y-haplogroups.


This thread: