User Tag List

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 97 of 97

Thread: Books you're reading now

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    2,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    ana be2ra kteben: el 2awwal 3an el llogha el 2amazighiye (Grammaire berbre, Michel Quitout; L'Harmattan) wa el tene 3an niheye el 3asr el bronzi (1177 B.C: The Year Civilization Collapsed, Eric H. Cline; Turning Points In Ancient History).

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post

    I might get to open Mallory's "The Origins of the Irish", I read the first chapter and immediately stopped reading it.
    Irish history is fortified by blarney and whiskey.

    All over the place.

    They claim descent from Magog (Scythians from the Ukraine), Greeks, Firbolg (Belgae), Mileasians (Celts of ancient Spain), Danaan (pre-Viking Scandanavians) ... and most amazingly the Irish add in ...

    Phoenicians ... and the Lost tribe of Dan.

    My view is that the Irish are primarily Indo-European Celts with a large Viking component, and a large ancient Basque element. The R1b indicates some connection with the Basques; but it is a different clade(?) of R1b so it might be Celtic, not Basque.

    Roughly half-Celt + 1/4 Viking + 1/4 Basque is a first guess, which explains why the Irish have very high rates of blue eyes, but high rates of dark hair.

    Apart from DNA, the whole thing is a mess. The Irish legends and texts are all over the place with their ancestry. The only thing they can agree is a connection to ancient Ukraine (Magog) before wandering 4000 years ago.

    On the way, they supposedly met Moses.

    The whole thing is a mess.

    Of course, John Loftus (an Irish-American author) told Rabbi Tovia Singer that the speculation was nonsense. "The Irish can't cook; and Jews can't drink."



    Whatever happened, the Irish drink and boast too much to be reliable.

    It is clear that some minor Phoenicians did get up the British Isles, though. How much remains in the Irish genome is probably very small.

  3. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  4. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    2,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousAmerican View Post
    Irish history is fortified by blarney and whiskey.

    All over the place.

    They claim descent from Magog (Scythians from the Ukraine), Greeks, Firbolg (Belgae), Mileasians (Celts of ancient Spain), Danaan (pre-Viking Scandanavians) ... and most amazingly the Irish add in ...

    Phoenicians ... and the Lost tribe of Dan.

    My view is that the Irish are primarily Indo-European Celts with a large Viking component, and a large ancient Basque element. The R1b indicates some connection with the Basques; but it is a different clade(?) of R1b so it might be Celtic, not Basque.

    Roughly half-Celt + 1/4 Viking + 1/4 Basque is a first guess, which explains why the Irish have very high rates of blue eyes, but high rates of dark hair.

    Apart from DNA, the whole thing is a mess. The Irish legends and texts are all over the place with their ancestry. The only thing they can agree is a connection to ancient Ukraine (Magog) before wandering 4000 years ago.

    On the way, they supposedly met Moses.

    The whole thing is a mess.

    Of course, John Loftus (an Irish-American author) told Rabbi Tovia Singer that the speculation was nonsense. "The Irish can't cook; and Jews can't drink."



    Whatever happened, the Irish drink and boast too much to be reliable.

    It is clear that some minor Phoenicians did get up the British Isles, though. How much remains in the Irish genome is probably very small.
    The case of Ireland serves as a cautionary tale if you ask me: We're dealing with the periphery, which is by definition extreme.

    So there are pretty wild claim as to who the Irish's ancestors were, and that's totally fine... Speculation is healthy.

    Mallory's a great researcher, he's specialised in historical linguistics and archeology which is a pretty rare sight tbh.
    The chapter on the Irish language is particularly interesting, it was a page-turner for me.
    The way he addressed population genetics was far more wobbly, understandably so since he doesn't really trust population genetics.
    This has to do with the fact that he thinks like a liberal, in other words "anyone can be Irish, having Irish genes doesn't make you more Irish than Ahmed from Pakistan".

    The Irish are extremely Northern European, the most Northern European population in the Isles.
    Their R1b subclade happens to be a subset of L21 (which is also found in the Basque country albeit at much lower frequencies): DF13 (a subset further subdivided in regional branches, probably fitting with several Celtic tribes).
    This subclade also happens to be the most common subclade of R1b in the Isles as a whole, and probably entered the Isles with the Rhenish Beaker folk during the Bronze Age (they probably brought in an early form of Italo-Celtic speech as well).

    The Basques, on the other hand, belong mostly to a subclade called "DF27", and within this subclade to a typically "Basque" subset: M153.
    DF27 is common in SW France and the Iberian peninsula, it probably came there with the Atlantic beaker folk (which also reached the British Isles, where DF27 can be found at very low frequencies) and other reflux movements associated with the Bell Beaker folk (who spoke some early form of Italo-Celtic, possibly para-Italo-Celtic similar to Lusitanian).

    On a purely autosomal basis, the Irish are ~43% "Western Hunter-Gatherer" (Mesolithic component), ~39% "Early European Farmer" (Neolithic component) and ~18% "Ancient North Eurasian" (another Palaeolithic-Mesolithic component which was found on a 24,000 kya old Siberian boy, "Mal'ta boy", Native Americans have the highest frequencies of this component [around 40%] which means that this was still a common component among the human groups which crossed the Bering strait... This component probably spread in Europe with the earliest Indo-European speakers but this is controversial since another Hunter-Gatherer from Sweden carried sizeable amounts of this component).

    Nothing really suggest a Phoenician contribution in the British Isles, much of the Near Eastern lineages seem to have come with the advent of the neolithic though there are notable exceptions (such as the Graham and Jordan families' modal J1 Y-DNA haplogroup, which was probably brought back to the Isles after the Normans invaded Sicily).

    There's a small Viking contribution, and a roughly equal English contribution... And that's about it really
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; 13-06-2014 at 08:33 AM.

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    There's a small Viking contribution, and a roughly equal English contribution... And that's about it really
    Outside of Ulster the English component was weak.

    The English who invaded Ireland first in the 11th century were actually Norman mercenaries, who were the grandsons of Vikings who had settled in France. Ethnically, they were not as Anglo-Saxon as one would think.

    The Viking component is rather large in the Irish, all the major Irish cities, except Ulster were founded by the Vikings. While Dublin pre-existed as Tara; the Vikings expanded it into Dublin. Eastern Ireland, which was hammered by the Vikings, has higher rates of fair hair than Western Ireland.

    Native Irish have (or had) a 66% rate of blue eyes (higher than England or Germany). Only Scandanavia and Estonia beat that number. Their nordicity fails at hair color. Dark brown hair is the most common. Though red hair in Ireland reaches the second highest level in the world. Scotland barely edges Ireland out.

    Clearly, the Vikings had major input into the Irish and Scottish genome.

    Yes, the Celts had blue eyes apart from the Vikings, but I doubt at such a high rate. The English input was not that large. The Irish adopted English names because of English law.

    I think 50% Gael, 25% Basque, 25% Viking is a good estimate with Western Ireland being more Basque and Eastern Ireland being more Viking. Oddly, the purest Gaels were in Ulster, which is why they fought the British so severely.

    There is some evidence of trade with the mideast ... and yes, of a small Phoenician input ... about 2,500 years ago, which has all but been submersed over time.

    One of the reasons I came to this site is because the Phoenicians are amazing. I do not trust Spencer Welles politically correct interpretation of the DNA data. I seriously think the ancient Phoenicians looking nothing like the present Arabs around them. I think they were overwhelmed, and sadly mixed.

    I think Christian Lebanese are descendants (albeit not pure) of the ancient Phoenicians.

    Spencer Welles made an error. He said since Phoenician blood is also found among the coasts of Lebanon, it must transcend Lebanon, and include Muslims. Wrong! I suspect those ancient Christians who converted to Islam were allowed to remain on the coast; while those who retained Christianity fled to the mountains - even though they were originally from the coast. But originally the Phoenicians became Maronites, but were driven to the mountains. Maronites would be the purest of the Phoenicians, but that is NOT politically correct.

    The history of the Phoenicians astounds me.

    The Bible says they are Hamitic (of Africa); but everything I see indicates a large Indo-European and Semitic background to the Maronites.

    Dan abode in the ships of Hiram. If Phoenicia was originally Canaanite, it apparently did not last so for long. The culture certainly survived, but it looks like the European and North Semitic mixing had already blended into the area by the time of the Phoenicians.

    This is evidence of an ancient IE kingdom in part of Lebanon.
    Last edited by CuriousAmerican; 13-06-2014 at 01:05 PM.

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    105

    Default

    By the way, if you are really into this; NO ONE can yet decide if the Ancient Picts of Scotland were really even Indo-Europeans, let alone Celts.

    Most TV histories describe them as Brythonic Celts, but no one is sure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictish_language

    No one is sure if the language is even IE, though that is the best guess.

    Because they merged with the Gaels around the 4th century, it may be impossible to tell now.

    Great site on the Picts - about 16 years old http://halfmoon.tripod.com/index.html

    Now, the Picts are the really amazing people
    of the Isles.


    People have a rough idea who the Gaels, the Welsh, the Scots, the Anglo-Saxons are; but the Picts are truly fascinating and mysterious.

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Irrelevant
    Posts
    2,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    74

    Default

    @CuriousAmerican

    Ethnically-speaking, the English settlers were a diverse bunch from the four corners of England.
    They incorporated the Norse-Gls (btw, I am a descendant of King Orry of Man, Norse-Gl ruler of Dublin, himself a descendant of Ivar the boneless hence a far-flung Yngling dynast [I recently found out that I'm related to a Norwegian descendant of Harald Fairhair, who was also a member of the Yngling dynasty, I strongly suspect our common ancestor was Ingjald ill-ruler... This came as a shock, I'd always known about King Orry but not about this insane amount or royal blood/Yngling dynasty/Ui Imair stuff, though statistically-speaking we all have royal ancestry of some kind this was quite overwhelming]) so the Viking component often goes hand in hand with the English one.

    Actually, the Vikings had a far greater impact on the Scottish genome (especially in the Orkneys & Shetlands, where they're almost completely Scandinavian, that is to say more than Icelanders [and I also have an Icelandic cousin btw, hence strengthening the claims of Norwegian ancestry]).
    R1a-Z284 (the most reliably Scandinavian marker in the Isles) is commonly found in Scotland, this is so true that it even contains Scottish subclades!

    Have a look:



    ^^ Z284 (light blue) contains at least two Scottish subclade, the most prominent being L176.

    There is no Irish equivalent so far, at least none that I'm aware of.

    Autosomally, it's hard to tell for sure since Scandinavians probably weren't all that different from the Britons they intended to subjuguate, they were mainly NW European people (we're splitting hairs here).
    However, the Irish share less IBD segments with Scandinavians (I'm discarding Icelanders here since they have a lot of Irish ancestry, especially on the maternal side) than the Scots or even the English do.

    Not exactly what I'd call a "large input" to say the least.
    The Irish are a pretty pristine Celtic population, that's how they look like for the time being, and they're a reference as far as British ancestry is of interest (since they remained relatively isolated from Scandinavian and continental gene-flow if we are to compare with the Scots or the English).

    There is practically no "Basque" ancestry in the isles, in fact the only lineage which is likely to have spread with the Basques (M153) reaches about ~1% in the Isles.
    Its ancestor (DF27) probably arrived with the Atlantic beakers & bell beaker reflux movements, before re-expanding along the Atlantic facade during the Atlantic Bronze Age:



    ^^ This lineage expanded relatively late, and almost certainly emerged in some sort of Italo-Celtic-speaking environment (yes, this means that the Basques actually descend from Bronze Age Indo-Europeans who replaced most of the original Basque lineages [probably I2a1-M26, G2a-L91 and E-V13], not the other way around).

    This is what genome-wide testing of neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers suggests. R1b is nowhere to be found amongst Mesolithic hunter-gatherers or Neolithic farmers, the most ancient R1b sample to date was found at Kromsdorf in a Bell Beaker setting, that makes R1b a latecomer, which probably entered Western Europe after the Neolithic during the Copper Age (there are other recent discoveries hinting towards this, such as the fact that a 24,000 kya old Siberian boy [Mal'ta boy] belong to haplogroup R* or pre-R*]).

    Hence why the Irish aren't 25% Basque or Viking, we can't even split their ancestry along such lines because there's much to bet that the Vikings were pretty similar to the Britons (=splitting hairs).
    A more accurate estimate of the Irish genome is ~43% Western Hunter-Gatherer/Mesolithic, ~39% Early European Farmer/Neolithic and ~18% Ancient North Eurasian (probably spread by the Proto-Indo-European-speaking community and its derived populations at some point).

    The Phoenicians weren't IE-speaking, Lebanon (the term itself predates the Phoenicians' appearance in the historical record) often sat in the middle of IE-speaking empires such as the Mitannian (Hurrian-speaking, though its ruling class was IE, Indo-Aryan to be precise) or Hittite empires (along with the numerous Syro-Hittite states which emerged during the Iron Age).
    There's much to bet that the Near East was quite different, genes-wise and phenotype-wise, prior to the coming of the arabs (we're getting pretty big surprises each time we test prehistorical samples in Europe, I'm expecting even bigger surprises in the Near East).

    Canaanite/Phoenician culture influenced Classical Greek and Roman culture more than you can imagine, the "Euro-Semitic" vibe you speak of is but a product of this influence.

    Regarding Pictish, I'm pretty sure it was IE, and I'm ready to bet it was Celtic as well.
    If not, then Para-Celtic or Para-Italo-Celtic of some sort (similar to Lusitanian).
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; 21-06-2014 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144

    Default

    ضيعةُ الله - وليم الخازن
    YOU CAN KILL A MAN BUT YOU CAN'T KILL AN IDEA. -Medgar Evers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •