GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1117916047
From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] R1b and DYS437
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:14:07 +0200
It is perhaps not relevent, but the Gaulish and Belgian Celts you mention as
invading Britain in Roman times were not the first Celts to enter Britain.
There seem to have been many waves, of people, including several of Celts,
loosely defined. For example Gaelic is also a Celtic language which
eventually became dominant in Ireland and Scotland, but it does not seem to
have been the language of the immigrants in Roman times. It is very unclear
now just how many distinct Celtic languages and dialects there were, and how
they all sat in relation to each other.
Secondly you suggest that Ireland was a refuge from continental immigrants
in the Roman imperial times. As already mentioned, it had of course had
earlier waves, such as presumably the Gaels. But on the other hand all
evidence suggests that Gaelic speakers were just one component of the Irish
nation in Roman times - with both earlier and later peoples and languages
sharing the island. Concerning later peoples, there do seem to have been
significant inroads made by Gauls (whose name seems to appear in many place
names and tribal names) and Belgae, who may have been remembered as the Fir
Bolg - presumably also related to the terrible new weapons technology of Cu
Chullain which he had to go to Scotland to learn how to use (Fir = men =
viri in Latin, wari in Old Germanic).
The reason this does not invalidate your main point is that languages and
ethnic names tend to move with small clans of powerful people, and not
majorities. The Boii, Romans, Alemanni etc were pushing Celtic speaking
tribes steadily west, but the people or "tribes" who moved would rarely have
been the majority - and this presumably also goes for the earlier pushes
west which put Celtic languages in western Europe in the first place.
Consider how the name of the Boii (whose original language is uncertain)
bacame both the Germanic "Bavarian" (Bayu-wari, modern German Bayern) and
the Slavic Bohemians; while the name of the North-Eastern European Germanic
Vandals came to refer to southern Spain (al-Andalus, Andalucia), and in to
some extent even to its historic Arabic speakers.
From: David Faux [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b and DYS437
What I am facing is the problem of differentiating private family mutations
(say a 15 to a 14 on DYS437) from a long - standing ethnic marker where say
14 has been modal in a particular population for perhaps 2000 or more years.
The task will only stand if a host population in say England is found and a
source population in say Spain is located and there is historical or
archaeological evidence of a movement of people from one location to the
For example my handy Penguin Atlas of Ancient History shows a cultural
continuity between Northern Iberia and all of Britain as of 375 BC. After
this date migrations of Parisi and other Gaulish peoples progressively
occupied England in the South and East and by 220 BC only Ireland and
Scotland had escaped the Continental incursions. By 74 BC all of Britain
was occupied by Belgae and other Celtic peoples thus severing the cultural
continuity with Iberia but likely leaving pockets of Iberian Y and mtDNA
In my case, of the first 25 markers all but 5 are modal for Iberia; and 4 of
these off - modal values are "significantly" more common in Iberia than
elsewhere (i.e., all at least twice as frequent in Iberia).
Who knows, maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but the data is consistent
with my hypothesis of a local origin. I would recommend that anyone who is
wondering about the possibility of a similar origin go to Robert Tarin's pdf
document via www.worldfamiies.net under "Y Haplogroups".
-------------- Original message --------------
> David F. and all,
> All 15 of our Group A "Shenandoah" Hursts are 437=14 (all also 390=23 and
> 391=10), with the origin almost certainly England. All are predicted R1b;
> I'm SNP-tested.
> All four of our Group E, also from Virginia, are also 437=14 (two are
> 390=23, two are 390=24; all are 391=11). They are predicted R1b, closer to
> the WAMH according to Whit's calculator than Group A.
> We only have three other American Hursts, all 437=15. (23/10, 24/10, and
> 24/11), all predicted R1b.
> I find it interesting that our two Virginia groups, who had parallel
> and migration patterns, share the 437=14 which is only 11% in non-Iberian
> R1bs. Of course, our Group A 393=14 is the primary distinguishing marker.
> Bill Hurst
|RE: [DNA] R1b and DYS437 by "Andrew and Inge" <>|