GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1158981896


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Celts descended from Spanish fishermen, study finds
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:24:56 -0300
References: <246baaff0609210813s25f61f0dqaa96e0b0705bddcb@mail.gmail.com>


> "This is significant, because the idea of a separate Celtic race is
> deeply ingrained in our political structure, and has historically been
> very divisive. Culturally, the view of a separate race holds water.
> But from a genetic point of view, Britain is emphatically not a
> divided nation."
>
> Origins of Britons
>
> Oisin
>
> Descended from Iberian fishermen who migrated to Britain between 4,000
> and 5,000BC and now considered the UK's indigenous inhabitants.
>
> Wodan
>
> Second most common clan arrived from Denmark during Viking invasions
> in the 9th century.
>
> Sigurd
>
> Descended from Viking invaders who settled in the British Isles from
> AD 793. One of the most common clans in the Shetland Isles, and areas
> of north and west Scotland.
>


My apologies but I've tried to ignore this bizarre set of
comments. However, it is tainting all my posts in
that the above is what you get when speculation runs
amuck. How could this actually have been published.

1) They call the Celts the indigenous people. Interesting
given that continental Celtic culture in terms of pottery, etc.
came after that of the people who built the megaliths.
2) The fisherman crossed the Bay of Biscay to arrive in
Britain. Funny I thought that took you to Brittany and then
you still had to cross the English Channel.
3) He says they developed ocean going vessels 6000
years ago. Where is the evidence for these vessels
at that time period?
4) As noted elsewhere the Spanish are a mix of a lot
of people from different areas. Which Spanish?
5) If "Britain is emphatically not a divided nation"
then why did he then proceed to divide it into six clans?
Is this not the dumbest contradiction coming from a
professor?
6) Why did he pull fishermen out of the hat? Furthermore,
how does a group of men reproduce? Does he know that
fishermen go out and fish and then return home. Why else
are they fishing? Why would they go several hundred
miles to fish when there are lots of fish near home. Why
would they fish up to a week or so away from home? If they
were actually staying in Britain would they not actually
be colonists who just happened to fish for food?
7) I'm sorry but any boat built 6000 years ago was not
the "Queen Elizabeth." It would have been small and
could only carry a handful of people let alone a big
cargo. So if they could not carry a big load of fish
why did they travel so long and so far to get so little
fish? Furthermore, if there were only a handful of people
in the boat how could they have overwhelmed the few
thousand people already on the island. Actually, there
were likely only a few thousand people in Spain as well
so how could we have a big invasion.
8) If the origins of the Britons are the six tribes
given, how come at least three of them came after
and were not Britons!
9) Its nice to know that the Wodan and Sigurd (both
commercially appealing Vikings) out produced the
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. who came before them
over 400 years earlier.

I think the rest of it has been commented on. Still can't
get over the Roman label though. After all, the Roman
armies/settlers would have probably been made up of the
other five. I hope there is a lot more scientific meat to
this book.

Peter

This thread: